Are you helpless? Delhi High Court raps Centre for Indigo crisis; asks airline to compensate passengers

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the government stepped in only after the situation in air travel turned worse.
It asked whether the Union government was helpless in acting against the defaulting airlines.
"You allowed the situation to precipitate and only then did you take action. Why did you allow all this to happen?", the Court asked.
In the order passed today, the Court recorded its anguish in following words,
"We appreciate the steps taken by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and DGCA. However, what bothers us is as to how such a situation was allowed to precipitate, leaving lakhs of passengers unattended at the airports. Such a situation is not confined to causing inconvenience to the passengers but also affects the economy of the country, as in the present day fast movement of passengers is an important aspect to keep the economy functioning."
The Court also took note of the issue of compensating the passengers, who were left stranded unattended at the airports. In this regard, it directed Indigo to ensure compliance with the relevant rules, particularly the circular issued by Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) for facilities to be provided by the airlines for delays and cancellation of flights.
"We expect and direct that such provisions for payment of compensation would be strictly adhered to by R3 [Indigo], which shall be ensured by the Ministry and DGCA as well. In addition to the provisions of the circular, If there are any other provisions for payment of damages to the passengers, the same shall also be ensured by the respondents," it ordered.
It also noted that Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam empowers the DGCA and Central government to take action against non-complying airlines.
It, thus, directed that the actions being taken to ensure that the situation comes to normal at the earliest must continue and without compromising the safety of the passengers. Further, the Court called for taking appropriate measures to ensure that all airlines employ adequate number of pilots.
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Indigo, told the High Court that there should not be a finding against the airline. This situation has arisen for the first time in 19 years of our operation, he said.
However, the Court refused to accept the contention.
"These measures have been implemented by all (other airlines) but you," CJ Upadhyaya said.
When Sethi said that the airline is back to 90 percent of its capacity, the Court said,
"That's very nice of you but think of those people who got stuck for a week. In these times what would have been the impact on the economy of the country?"
The Court added that it has not said anything about Indigo in the order yet but the airline must immediately start compensating the passengers.
"Let me make it very clear. We will also take up the issue that apart from what has been provided in the 2010 circular, what about the agony that the passenger had to undergo because he was left stranded, and he faced a very hostile staff. We will be failing in our duty if we do not point this out," the bench said.
The Court further said that the compensation should not be only with regard to the cancellation but also the agony caused to the passengers
Sethi said that for the last 10 years, Indigo has been the best-awarded airline not only in India but in South Asia but the Court said that this fact would not absolve the airline of the present fiasco.
During the hearing, the bench grilled the Union government and asked it to apprise the Court about the steps taken to assist the affected passengers and the action to ensure the employees of the airlines behave properly with them.
"We appreciate your efforts but what was the failure on the government's part to precipitate this situation. It's not just a question for individual passengers stuck at the airport. The question is also about loss to the economy? What action have you taken to provide help to people and compensate them?," the Court asked.
"And most importantly, why did you not implement the guidelines (on pilot working hours) on time?," the Court added.
The Court also questioned whether the failure to implement the FDTL would not compromise passenger safety.
"Tell us the ground reality. If a pilot is supposed to do 2 landings in a night and he is doing 6, he is compromising on people's safety," it said.
It also asked about the action taken over airlines' failure to recruit adequate number of pilots.
In response, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma said that the Central government has taken drastic actions in the matter and a Committee is probing the circumstances that led to Indigo crisis.
He also submitted that there are provisions for imposing fine on the airlines.
"So what have you done to invoke these provisions?" the Court asked.
It was submitted that the inquiry was ongoing.
"See the kind of high level inquiry and also the suspension that has resulted," ASG Sharma said.
The Court then sought a clarification regarding the suspension aspect.
ASG Sharma said,
"We are looking into that. We have the power to suspend."
However, the Court asked how the airline will operate then.
"I am saying it could lead to this. Section 19 provides us the power," ASG Sharma responded.
ASG then claimed that the government's measures in the matter have been appreciated by the Supreme Court.
"Inquiry appointed, restorative measures in place. Whatever the government could do, it has done more than that, and it has been appreciated by the Supreme Court as well," he said.
There should not be a knee-jerk reaction, Sharma argued further.
"There is a complete mechanism in place. So far as the government is concerned, the government has acted with great alacrity and severeness also, keeping in mind the interest of senior citizens and passengers with medical issue and we will continue to do it," he added.
Sharma also submitted that the government had capped the airfare.
However, the Court observed that the step was taken after 4-5 days.
"After how many days? After 4-5 days. The air ticket available for four or five thousand rupees, the fares went up to ₹30,000. The question also is, if there is such a crisis, how can other airlines take advantage of it? How can other airlines start charging ₹40,000?," it asked.
ASG Sharma told the Court that only a one-time exemption has been granted to Indigo as regards FDTL.
"We are at it since 2024. Accordingly, in public interest, we have taken the decision as a one time measure and granted exemption to Indigo. And these will only remain valid till February 2026," he submitted.
Every 15 days there is going to be a review and we can withdraw it, he added.
However, the Court maintained that the actions were being taken only after the crisis unfolded.
"Mr Sharma, these all actions have been taken by you once the crisis erupted. The question is not this. The question is why the crisis erupted at all and what have you been doing?," the Court asked.
Even as the ASG attempted to defend the government role, the Court said,
"You had in 2024 made certain provisions about duty period, rest etc. After disposal of the matter by this court, these provisions were to be implemented in a phased manner."
The Court further asked about the options available with the government to take action against the erring airlines.
"In case any of the airlines or service provider failed to do so, what provision is available to you in case of failure by these airlines? Are you helpless? We want to know under which provision or policy decision you would take action against them?," the Court asked.
ASG Sharma said that the Ministry of Civil Aviation had a limited role in the matter. However, he added that the DCGA was looking into the crisis.
The Court then asked about the powers available with DGCA.
"We want to know, Section 4 empowers DGCA to issue directions for the operation of these airlines. If there is a violation, what happens then?," it said.
DCGA counsel Anjana Gosain then took the Court through the background of the crisis. However, the Court was not convinced with the explanation.
"We understand that after the decision of this court, the guidelines were to be implemented in a phased manner and this issue of rest to pilots was to be implemented from November 2024. They did not do it," the bench said.
Gosain argued that the DGCA was not giving the exemptions happily.
"If we had not granted these exemptions, it would have had a cascading effect," she said.
Interestingly, the Court also questioned the petitioners for filing the PIL without considering the entire factual situation, particularly the actions taken by the government. It also remarked that the prayers in the PIL were vague.
In the order, the Court said it was taking cognizance of the issue due to the public interest despite the shortcomings in the pleadings.
"Having gone through the petition, at the outset, we may express our dissatisfaction at the manner in which the petition has been filed which lacks adequate research and evidence to support the prayer. Howevver, having regard to the public interest, we have taken cognisance of the issue involved. We expected petitioners to have come better prepared," the bench said.