The Delhi High Court on Wednesday pulled up the Union government and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) for failing to prevent the massive disruption of IndiGo flights that left thousands of passengers stranded across airports nationwide.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the authorities intervened only after the situation spiralled into a full-fledged aviation crisis. It questioned whether the Union executive and sectoral regulators were truly powerless against the airlines, which was alleged to be in breach of statutory and regulatory obligations.
The High Court noted that the consequences extended far beyond individual hardship, stressing that the near-paralysis of air transport carried serious macroeconomic implications because of the critical role played by civil aviation in sustaining commercial mobility.
The Division Bench expressed its deep concern over flight cancellations and long delays, leading to abandoned passengers. Lakhs of travellers were left unattended at airports in what amounted to a systemic failure implicating both the airline and the regulatory apparatus, it remarked.
Citing the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam (BVA), 2023, and the binding directives of the DGCA, the High Court highlighted that both the sectoral regulator and the Central government possessed extensive supervisory and enforcement powers, including the authority to impose sanctions. Yet, these powers appeared to have been exercised only belatedly, it added.
The Division Bench stressed that the DGCA’s Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), particularly those concerning entitlements available to passengers during delays and cancellations, were mandatory and not subject to discretion.
Noting that airlines were responsible not just for compensating passengers for delays or cancellations but also for addressing the hardship faced by those left without support at airports for extended periods, the High Court directed IndiGo to ensure strict compliance with these norms and any additional statutory entitlements concerning compensation or damages.
The Union government and DGCA were ordered to ensure the enforcement of all applicable compensation frameworks and evaluate whether airlines had honoured their obligations in full.
It further drew attention to the chronic shortage of pilots in the industry, noting that airlines had long been aware of upcoming regulatory changes to Flight Duty Time Limitations (FDTL) and querying why adequate recruitment and staffing measures were not undertaken. They sought clarity on why the government failed to ensure timely implementation of the revised FDTL norms and whether the delay had implications for passenger safety.
The High Court questioned the government on the unprecedented spike in airfares charged by other airlines during the crisis, asking why fare caps were imposed only days after prices soared, in some cases to more than eight times the usual levels. It sought an explanation regarding the absence of pre-emptive safeguards to prevent carriers from exploiting an emergency to impose exorbitant tariffs.
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for IndiGo, argued that the situation was unprecedented in the airline’s 19-year history and claimed that operations had been restored to nearly 90 percent capacity. He added that the DGCA had granted a one-time exemption from certain FDTL requirements, effective until February 2026, to facilitate stabilisation. The Court, however, expressed reservations, noting that compliance with duty-time limitations is a safety-critical obligation and that the phased implementation schedule for revised norms had been communicated earlier and should not have been ignored.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the Union government, submitted that a high-level inquiry had been initiated and that multiple corrective steps had been taken, including fleet rationalisation, exemption protocols, airfare regulation and enhanced passenger-assistance mechanisms. He also noted that the Supreme Court had recently acknowledged the government’s efforts. The Bench nevertheless demanded a detailed account of all statutory measures exercised under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, the DGCA’s powers under Section 4, and any enforcement action taken against airlines that failed to maintain adequate pilot strength or comply with safety and scheduling norms. It asked the government to explain why the crisis had unfolded despite the availability of clear regulatory authority to prevent such an outcome.
The PIL prompting the proceedings was filed by Advocates Akhil Rana and Utkarsh Sharma, who alleged arbitrariness, regulatory non-compliance, aviation safety violations and unfair trade practices.
While the Bench found the petition lacking in research and specificity, it invoked its constitutional duty to intervene in matters affecting public interest and systemic governance failures. It refrained from making any conclusive observations on the causes of the disruption, stating that a formal inquiry was underway. The High Court, however, directed that if the inquiry report was completed before the next hearing, it must be submitted in a sealed cover. The matter was listed for further hearing on January 22, 2026.
The post Delhi High Court berates Centre, DGCA for failing to prevent IndiGo flight crisis appeared first on India Legal.