The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation that sought an extraordinary relief of four times the ticket price for passengers whose flights were recently cancelled by IndiGo and a judicial inquiry into alleged lapses by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. The petition was filed by the Centre for Accountability and Systematic Change and raised concerns about the large‑scale disruption caused by widespread cancellations of flights, resulting in significant hardship to passengers. The division bench comprising the Chief Justice and another judge observed that a similar matter was already pending before the Court and that the issues raised in the present plea could be addressed within the proceedings that were already underway. The bench directed that the petitioner should seek intervention in the ongoing case instead of pursuing a separate petition, noting that no final adjudication had been issued in that earlier matter and that multiplicity of proceedings was unnecessary.
The petitioner submitted that a show‑cause notice had been issued earlier, but that the report by the civil aviation regulator had yet to be filed, and that more than twelve lakh passengers suffered due to over five thousand flight cancellations in recent weeks. The plea contended that faults and lapses on the part of IndiGo and failures in regulatory enforcement by the aviation authority had exposed vulnerabilities in the aviation sector and could impede the nation’s broader developmental goals. It also alleged that large carriers like IndiGo were not subjected to meaningful penal action, creating an appearance of unequal treatment, and sought a class action suit for the relief of passengers who suffered damages and inconvenience.
As part of the relief sought, the petition called for four‑times compensation for cancelled tickets on the basis that existing regulatory mechanisms and compensation frameworks were insufficient to address the extensive disruption faced by travellers. It also urged the Court to order an independent judicial inquiry into the regulatory lapses by the aviation authority that allegedly contributed to the crisis. The petitioner further sought an undertaking from the airline confirming full refunds and compliance with compensation requirements, and invoked provisions of the Consumer Protection Act to support the class action request.
The bench questioned the necessity of a separate PIL given that similar prayers and grievances were already the subject of pending proceedings before it, and highlighted that concerns relating to compensation, refunds, and oversight by regulatory authorities could be raised within the ongoing petition. The Court observed that it had not ruled out compensation in the earlier matter but was awaiting the report of the regulator to better assess the issues. It noted that one aspect of the dispute relating to class action relief could not be granted by it in the manner sought by the petitioner, further reinforcing the position that the instant petition was not the appropriate vehicle for such relief.
The Court also remarked on the availability of statutory remedies and the fact that existing laws and consumer protection mechanisms could be invoked for addressing grievances against airlines, rather than seeking novel relief in a separate PIL. It observed that the question of compensation would be considered after the regulator’s report had been placed before the Court, indicating that adjudication on specific compensation levels or related issues hinged on procedural developments in the pending case. The decision reflects the Court’s inclination to streamline related litigation and avoid parallel proceedings on the same subject matter, encouraging consolidation rather than fragmentation of judicial intervention in public interest matters arising from the aviation sector disruption.
In dismissing the petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to seek impleadment in the ongoing proceedings, thereby allowing the petitioner to raise its additional contentions in the context of the existing case. The Court’s order makes clear that petitioners cannot pursue separate PILs with overlapping reliefs and issues where similar disputes are already being heard, and that concerns about regulatory lapses, compensation entitlements, and airline compliance can be addressed in a consolidated judicial forum. The matter was accordingly disposed of, with directions that the relief sought in the present petition should be taken up within the framework of the earlier‑filed litigation rather than through a fresh petition.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.