The Delhi High Court issued notice on a petition filed by a passenger seeking direction for refund of fares paid to IndiGo airlines for cancelled flights, observing that while the Supreme Court was seized of a related matter by way of a Special Leave Petition, there was no stay on the enforcement of rights in that proceeding. The bench heard submissions from the petitioner’s counsel who contended that the regulatory and legal framework governing the aviation sector entitles passengers to timely refunds for flights that are cancelled by airlines, and that the failure to provide such refunds promptly amounts to violation of passenger rights. In support of this position, the petitioner relied on the argument that the Supreme Court’s order in the related SLP did not stay the operation of statutory provisions or bar passengers from seeking enforcement of their rights before appropriate courts.
The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that despite repeated requests to IndiGo for refunds in respect of flights cancelled over a period, the airline had neither refunded the amounts paid nor provided a firm timeline for doing so, resulting in financial prejudice to the passenger. The plea before the High Court sought a writ of mandamus directing IndiGo to make refunds within a short specified period, asserting that passengers should not be made to wait indefinitely for refunds when cancellations are systemic and not isolated incidents. It was contended that the airline’s inaction was contrary to consumer protection principles and applicable aviation regulations governing refunds and passenger entitlements.
In response, counsel representing the airline argued that the Supreme Court is already considering core issues arising from flight cancellations and related refund entitlements in the Special Leave Petition before it, and that this Court should refrain from adjudicating similar issues which are sub judice at the apex court. The airline’s counsel urged the High Court to exercise restraint and avoid deciding matters that are presently under active consideration by the Supreme Court until such time as the apex court pronounces a definitive view.
While addressing these rival submissions, the High Court noted that there was no formal stay on the operative effect of the statutory rights and obligations under challenge in the SLP pending before the Supreme Court. The Court observed that absence of such a stay meant that passengers’ statutory rights remained enforceable and that courts below retained jurisdiction to entertain independent claims for refund where legally maintainable. Taking cognisance of the factual and legal contentions raised, the High Court issued notice to the airline and directed it to file its response to the petition within a stipulated timeframe.
The notice issued by the High Court signals the judiciary’s engagement with passenger rights and the enforcement of refund entitlements in the context of widespread flight cancellations and alleged regulatory lapses. By issuing notice despite the pendency of related proceedings before the Supreme Court, the bench underscored that absent a stay on the relevant rights and obligations, passengers may pursue remedies concurrently before different courts, subject to legal scrutiny and judicial discretion. The Court will now consider the respondent’s reply and examine whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of relief in respect of the refund claim, taking into account the statutory framework, airline obligations, and regulatory environment governing scheduled air transport services.
The proceedings reflect judicial concern over systemic issues affecting air travellers and their rights, particularly in the backdrop of high volumes of flight cancellations and delays in processing refunds. The High Court’s notice marks the next step in adjudicating individual claims for restitution while balancing respect for concurrent proceedings before the Supreme Court and ensuring that litigants’ rights remain actionable in appropriate forums where not stayed or suspended by higher judicial orders.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.