The Chief Justice Bench of the Delhi High Court on Wednesday sharply criticised the extensive disruption in IndiGo’s flight operations witnessed over the past week, which resulted in large-scale cancellations, prolonged delays, and left passengers — including minors, elderly travellers and medical patients — stranded at airports nationwide.
The Court underscored that the situation had escalated into a matter of grave public concern, noting that passengers were left without proper assistance and were forced to endure uncomfortable conditions along with sudden fare hikes by other carriers.
Although the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the matter was described by the Bench as poorly drafted and deficient in supporting evidence, the Court nonetheless opted to intervene given the magnitude of the aviation breakdown and the severe impact on travellers.
Representing the Union Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma informed the Court that the operational collapse was closely linked to IndiGo’s failure to comply with the 2024 Flight Duty Time Limitations (FDTL) regime, along with manpower shortages, faults in its crew rostering system, and deficiencies in operational forecasting. He further stated that while the revised FDTL norms, including those concerning mandatory rest periods and night landing limitations, were to be enforced in phases beginning July and November 2025, authorities had been monitoring the carrier’s compliance trajectory well before the disruptions occurred.
The Court recorded that DGCA has already initiated regulatory action in response to the crisis, including temporary operational relaxations to stabilise the airline’s schedule, issuance of a show-cause notice to IndiGo, and formation of a high-level inquiry body on December 5, 2025. The committee has been tasked with probing the root causes of the service collapse, examining regulatory oversight gaps, assessing pilot and crew deployment adequacy, and reviewing overall compliance with safety norms. The Bench also drew attention to Schedule 6B of the Aircraft Rules, emphasising that any breach could invite proportionate penalties depending on the severity of non-compliance.
Appearing on behalf of IndiGo, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi contended that the situation was a result of multiple converging factors rather than solely pilot scheduling or rostering lapses. He asserted that IndiGo had maintained an “unblemished operational track record” for nearly twenty years and sought that no adverse judicial conclusions be formed until the official inquiry is complete. Sethi assured full cooperation with DGCA and the fact-finding panel.
While refraining from issuing directions against the airline at this stage, the Bench reiterated that IndiGo must strictly adhere to the DGCA’s 2010 Civil Aviation Requirements governing mandatory passenger compensation for delays, cancellations, and denied boarding. The Court remarked that passengers who endured prolonged inconvenience, medical distress, or extended airport confinement are legally entitled to compensation, and such claims must be processed without bureaucratic delay.
Clarifying its position, the Court stated that it was not drawing any final conclusions regarding IndiGo’s culpability and that the investigative process must remain independent, objective, and free of external influence from either the airline or the Ministry.
The matter will return for hearing on January 22, 2026. On that date, the fact-finding committee’s comprehensive report is expected to be submitted in a sealed cover, along with detailed responses from IndiGo, the DGCA, and the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
Cause Title: Akhil Rana and Anr. v. Union Of India and Ors.
[W.P.(C) – 18718 / 2025]
Read More: Karnataka HC Directs Customs Dept. To refund Rs. 3.40 Crore to Patanjali Foods
