On Monday, a lawyer stood before a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Aparesh Kumar Singh to request an urgent hearing. He pointed out that festival airfares had escalated by nearly 700 per cent. He argued that flying is an essential service and that such extreme price spikes violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

To advertise here,

The judges declined to list the matter urgently. "Don't travel by air," the bench observed. 

The brief exchange immediately raised eyebrows across the country. While news reports suggest no written grounds were given for turning away Monday's urgent request, the oral remark spread rapidly online, opening a wider discussion on airfares, government oversight, and citizen rights.

Neitizens expressed frustration over the courtroom remark. Many pointed out that air travel is no longer just a luxury, but often an urgent necessity during family emergencies.

Consider a worker based in Bengaluru whose mother falls ill in Patna. Train seats are frequently booked solid weeks in advance, and Tatkal quotas disappear within minutes. When flight prices quadruple during peak seasons, families face a tough choice between paying exorbitant fares or missing crucial visits home during festivals like Diwali. 

Commentators highlighted the gap between political slogans promising affordable air travel for common citizens and the reality of uncapped surge pricing. They questioned why administrative rules appear to leave airlines with a free hand during peak demand.

Many drew comparisons to other everyday struggles, noting that telling citizens to avoid flying is similar to telling motorists to avoid highways because of high toll charges, or advising families to skip medical care or education when fees rise.

Critics also pointed out a noticeable contrast: high-ranking public figures and judges receive state-funded air travel, while ordinary passengers seeking constitutional protection against cartel-like pricing receive quick dismissals.

Counter-views and why the plea was turned away

Not all online commentary was critical of the court. Some voices agreed with the bench, arguing that air travel cannot strictly be classed as an essential service. They noted that sharp price increases occur across several non-essential sectors without triggering public interest litigation.

Legal observers also clarified the background behind Monday's outcome. The judges did not shut the door on the issue of airfare regulation altogether. In fact, a judge on Monday's bench is already part of another bench hearing a major pending petition on airfare pricing. Monday's separate plea was simply turned away without a fresh hearing date. 

What happens next in the legal battle

The broader legal challenge against unpredictable airfares remains active in the Supreme Court. Social activist S Laxminarayanan filed a petition seeking a dedicated, independent aviation regulator to ensure transparency, protect passengers, and control erratic fare surges and extra charges imposed by private airlines.

The Supreme Court took up the matter last November by issuing notices to the Centre and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. In January, the court flagged festival airfare spikes as "exploitation" and indicated it would look into unpredictable price fluctuations.

The government has since fast-tracked new rules. On August 17, the Centre told the top court that framing rules under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, was underway, and confirmed on October 16 that administrative approval had been granted.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta is scheduled to submit these published rules to the court on November 16. Published last week, the rules take effect on January 1, but they allow government intervention only during extraordinary situations and do not set a fixed price cap. As the court prepares to examine the new framework on November 16, public attention remains focused on whether the upcoming hearing will lead to lasting relief for festival travellers.