SC pulls up Centre over delay in filing airfare regulation affidavit

The Supreme Court on Thursday (April 30) chided the Centre for not filing its affidavit on a petition seeking regulatory guidelines to control the "unpredictable fluctuations" in airfare and ancillary charges levied by private airlines in the country. The court expressed displeasure over the Centre not being able to file the affidavit despite being granted time thrice.

Court questions delay

During the hearing, a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the Centre to file an application along with an affidavit explaining the delay on its part in not filing the said affidavit, along with the reasons for seeking further time for it.

Also Read: SC reserves verdict on Pawan Khera’s anticipatory bail plea in Assam passport row

On November 17 last year, the top court sought responses from the Centre and others on a plea by social activist S Laxminarayanan, who sought a robust and independent regulator that ensures transparency and passenger protection across the civil aviation sector.

Centre mentions Middle East situation

Soon after the hearing started, the petitioner’s counsel informed the court that no response from the Centre has been received so far. At this point, the Centre’s counsel referred to the evolving situation in the Middle East.

Also Read: SC urges law review on abortion limits in rape cases amid minor's pregnancy plea

However, the top court was not convinced by the argument and asked the Centre why it was not filing an affidavit on the issue.

"What is this? What prevents you from filing an affidavit?" the bench asked.

Bench rejects further extension

The Centre's counsel said they were contemplating framing rules.

"You file an affidavit and place everything on record. Why can't you file an affidavit? What is this stand of the Union? Three times we have granted you time," the bench said.

Also Read: Supreme Court questions non-believer's right to enter Sabarimala

Even though the Centre’s counsel sought three weeks to file the affidavit, the bench turned down the request, asking it to file the affidavit next week.

"You file your affidavit and say whatever you want to say. Your affidavit must come by next Friday (May 8)," the bench said.

Order notes continued non-compliance

The bench, in its order, further stated that fact that notice was issued on the petition on November 17 last year and thereafter time was granted to the respondents to file the affidavit, "till date no affidavit has been filed".

Also Read: Existing laws sufficient to deal with hate speech issue, no legislative vacuum: SC

It said today, the counsel representing the Centre has sought some more time.

"We are not willing to accept the request. Let an appropriate application, along with an affidavit giving reasons for why affidavit has not been filed and why further time is being sought, be filed within a week. List again on May 11," the bench said.

Earlier hearings and observations

On February 23, the Centre told the apex court that the Ministry of Civil Aviation was actively considering the issues raised in the plea.

While hearing the matter on January 19, the top court said it would interfere with the "unpredictable fluctuations" in airfares and flagged the exorbitant rise during festivals.

Also Read: SC flags limits on religious autonomy during Sabarimala hearing

The top court had termed the exorbitant rise of airfares by the airlines as "exploitation" and asked the Centre and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to file their replies on the plea.

In November last year, it had issued notices to the Centre, the DGCA and the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India seeking their responses on the plea.

Plea flags baggage cuts, fare hikes

The plea claimed that all private airlines have, without any credible justification, reduced the free check-in baggage allowance for economy class passengers from 25 kg to 15 kg, "thereby converting what was earlier part of the ticketed service into a new revenue stream".

"Arbitrary fare hikes during emergencies deny vulnerable citizens this right, especially when they are compelled to choose air travel out of necessity rather than luxury," stated the plea.

(With agency inputs)