The Supreme Court on Friday said there should be some rationalisation of airfares and asked the Centre to provide relief to flyers.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta flagged that on the same day, one airline flying in the same sector charges a particular airfare while other charges a different airfare.

"Try to give some relief to the people because of the discrepancy. On the same day, flights to the same sector, one airline charges ₹8,000 while the other airline charges ₹18,000 for the economy class," the bench told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre.

Justice Mehta said, "There should be some rationalisation (of airfares)" after the solicitor general said that a new enactment of 2024 has come into effect and the corresponding rules are in the process of consultation.

Mehta said the government was not disputing the problem and is treating the issue as non-adversarial and considering all aspects.

The bench was hearing a plea filed by social activist S Laxminarayanan, who sought a robust and independent regulator that ensures transparency and passenger protection across the civil aviation sector and regulatory guidelines to control the "unpredictable fluctuations" in airfare and ancillary charges imposed by private airlines in India.

Senior advocate Ravindra Srivastava, appearing for Laxminarayanan submitted that rules are already there under the Aircraft Act of 1937 but the problem is that they were not followed.

Mehta agreed that old rules are in place but new ones being formulated under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam of 2024 that came into effect in January, 2025.

Srivastava said till the new rules are framed, the old rules will continue and it says that if the DGCA is satisfied that in a particular situation, the airlines are indulging in charging predatory or excessive fares, it will issue directions.

"They are not issuing any directions. The rules are there, the power is there but it is a case of non-exercise of powers," he submitted.

The bench asked Srivastava to reply to the counter-affidavit filed by the Centre and recorded the solicitor general's submission that consultation process for formulation of rules under the new regime is going on.

The bench posted the matter for hearing on July 13.

On April 30, the top court pulled up the Centre for not filing its affidavit on a petition which sought regulatory guidelines to control the "unpredictable fluctuations" in airfare and ancillary charges imposed by private airlines in India.

It had asked the Centre to file an application along with an affidavit giving reasons for why the affidavit has not been filed and why further time was sought for it.

On November 17 last year, the top court sought responses from the Centre and others on Laxminarayanan's plea seeking sought a robust and independent regulator that ensures transparency and passenger protection across the civil aviation sector.

On February 23, the Centre told the apex court that the Ministry of Civil Aviation was actively considering the issues raised in the plea.

While hearing the matter on January 19, the top court said it would interfere with the "unpredictable fluctuations" in airfares and flagged the exorbitant rise during festivals.

The top court had termed the exorbitant rise of airfares by the airlines as "exploitation" and asked the Centre and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to file their replies on the plea.

The plea claimed that all private airlines have, without any credible justification, reduced the free check-in baggage allowance for economy class passengers from 25 kg to 15 kg, "thereby converting what was earlier part of the ticketed service into a new revenue stream".

It said the "new policy of permitting only a single piece for check-in and the absence of any rebate, compensation or benefit to passengers who do not avail themselves of check-in baggage demonstrates the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of the measure."

The plea claimed that currently, no authority has the power to review or cap airfares or ancillary fees, allowing the airlines to exploit consumers through hidden charges and unpredictable pricing.

It said the "unregulated, opaque and exploitative conduct of airlines manifesting in arbitrary fare hikes, unilateral reduction of services, absence of on-ground grievance redressal and unjustified dynamic pricing algorithms directly infringes upon citizens' fundamental rights to equality, freedom of movement and life with dignity."

It said the absence of regulatory safeguards results in arbitrary fare hikes, especially during festivals or weather disruptions, which disproportionately harm poor and last-minute travellers.

The plea said inaction by the State in regulating fare algorithms, cancellation policies, service continuity and grievance mechanisms constitutes a dereliction of its constitutional duty and calls for urgent judicial intervention.

It said there is no rule to stop the airlines from increasing prices based on demand and allowing them such freedom under essential services is unjustifiable.

Published on May 15, 2026