On Monday, the Kerala High Court expressed concerns about the high airfares charged by airlines, particularly during peak travel seasons. This discussion arose during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Kerala Pravasi Association.
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu highlighted that airlines might be exploiting the significant population of expatriates from Kerala living in the Middle East. Justice Mustaque commented, “It is true that it is happening in India. Airlines charge us exorbitant amounts during the peak season especially exploiting the Gulf travelers and immigrants.”
However, the court clarified that the appropriate forum to address grievances related to high airfares is the Competition Commission of India (CCI), rather than the High Court. The bench remarked:
“The law allows airlines to fix the tariff. But if they use their monopoly in the market then that can be considered by the Competition Commission. They can order payment of huge compensation. We are not using it because we have no awareness of competition law. We cannot say this should be the tariff or that you cannot charge this tariff… Tomorrow you can say that tariff should be fixed by kilometer like for an autorickshaw. That may be possible for parliament to do by passing legislation but we cannot say.”
The PIL, filed by the Kerala Pravasi Association, sought the striking down of Rule 135(1) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937. This rule grants airlines the authority to establish tariffs, considering factors like operational costs and reasonable profit. The petitioners argued that this rule is arbitrary, vague, and violates the Aircraft Act, 1934, and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They claimed:
“It is respectfully submitted that unfettered powers have been given to the airline to establish its tariff under the impugned Rule as there are absolutely no guidelines or clarity with respect to the ‘reasonable profit’ and the ‘generally prevailing tariff’. This has led to a situation where there is large scale exploitation of the vulnerable expats...Needless to state, the tariffs are often dictated by the airline which has the larger seat share, thereby resulting in abuse of dominant position.”
The petitioners also argued that the rule contradicts the central government’s power to regulate economic aspects of civil aviation and air transport services, including tariff approval.
The Kerala High Court acknowledged the private operators’ right to set tariffs but stressed that if they are abusing their market monopoly, such practices should be challenged before the CCI. The bench further noted:
“There is an ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) with its headquarters in Montreal. India is a party to their regulations. They have certain directions which is exactly what government follows. Which is probably why they have enacted the Rules like this. The only way of challenging this issue is through Competition Law.”
The court suggested that while the PIL might not be maintainable as presented, it agreed to list the matter again along with related petitions for further consideration.
TAGS: Kerala High Court Air Fares Competition Commission of India Rule 135(1) Kerala Pravasi Association PIL Aircraft Rules
