The Supreme Court on Monday (July 13, 2026) asked the Union government to place on record the new aviation rules framed under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 to regulate volatile airfares and predatory pricing in civil aviation. The court was informed that the regulations have already been finalised, and were currently being translated into Hindi and other official languages before they are tabled in Parliament.

Appearing for the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and the Union government, Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik apprised a Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that the regulations would be placed before Parliament during the upcoming monsoon session, scheduled to commence on July 21. “The draft rules are ready. They are to be tabled before Parliament. Please give us some time,” Mr. Kaushik said.

However, senior advocate Ravindra Srivastava, appearing for the petitioner, contended that under the provisions of the 2024 Act, the new rules must first be published for public consultation before being tabled before Parliament.

“After the rules are framed, they have to be published for public consultation. Only thereafter can they be placed before Parliament,” he submitted. Finding merit in the submission, the Bench granted the Centre two weeks’ time to place the draft aviation rules before the court in a sealed cover.

“...Respondents need to peruse the rules before this court without awaiting the placing of the same before Parliament. Considering the aforesaid submissions, we grant two weeks’ time to the respondents to place before this court the rules that are being framed, irrespective of the fact whether they are placed before the Parliament or not, in a sealed cover,” the Bench ordered.

The top court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by social activist S. Laxminarayan seeking the formulation of binding regulatory norms to address arbitrary airfare pricing and ancillary charges imposed by private airlines during festive periods, holidays, and emergencies.

Mr. Srivastava also contended that the sharp surge in airfares during festivals was exploitative and blamed the continued inaction of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) for the prevailing state of affairs. The Union government had, in April, kept in abeyance a March 18 direction issued by the DGCA requiring airlines to offer at least 60% of seats without any seat selection fee, he said.

The March 18 direction had also required airlines to ensure that passengers travelling under the same passenger name record (PNR) were seated together, “preferably in adjacent seats”, among other passenger-friendly measures.

“The DGCA, which is the regulator, is issuing directions and the government withdraws those directions... It is a sorry situation. Your Lordships must consider putting in place a very robust and independent regulatory mechanism,” the petitioner’s advocate said.

This prompted Justice Mehta to observe that recent reports suggesting Iran may close the Strait of Hormuz, despite the ceasefire announced in June, had once again given airlines a “window” to sharply increase airfares on the pretext of a looming oil crisis.

Mr. Srivastava, however, said that an affidavit placed on record showed the fuel component constituted no more than 10% of the airfare, even though fares had risen exponentially.

“The fuel component in the airfare is a maximum of 10%. The rise is 100 to 300% during this period. This is a very pitiable condition. Your Lordships have to do something,” he said.

Agreeing to examine the concerns raised, the Bench posted the matter for further hearing on August 3.

There is currently no regulatory authority vested with the power to review or cap airfares, enabling airlines to exploit consumers through hidden fees and unpredictable pricing, the petition said. Such practices disproportionately affect economically weaker passengers, who are often compelled to purchase tickets during periods of peak surge pricing, while wealthier travellers can plan and book in advance, it said.

“In a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law, the state cannot remain a mute spectator to this ongoing violation of rights. 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,” the plea said.

The court was further apprised that such continued state inaction in regulating fare algorithms, cancellation policies, service continuity, and grievance redressal mechanisms amounts to a dereliction of constitutional duty and warrants urgent judicial intervention.