IndiGo’s multiple legal battles: A competition probe, passenger agony, and pilot fatigue

The Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) order last week for an investigation into IndiGo was the latest legal trouble facing the country’s largest airline due to the operational crisis that gripped the aviation sector in early December, when the airline cancelled hundreds of flights, leaving thousands of passengers stranded. While the CCI is examining the economic implications of the crisis – specifically, alleged price gouging – the Delhi High Court is simultaneously hearing two separate PIL petitions addressing passenger compensation and aviation safety norms. We explain. ## Why is CCI investigating IndiGo? The CCI’s order stems from proceedings initiated by a passenger, Kartikeya Rawal. On December 4, 2025, Rawal’s return flight from Delhi to Bengaluru, booked for Rs 7,173, was cancelled hours before departure. He alleged that while no alternate arrangement was provided, IndiGo offered seats on other flights for the same sector at a much higher fare. He eventually paid Rs 17,000 for a different IndiGo flight two days later. His core allegation was that IndiGo abused its dominant position in violation of the Competition Act, 2002. Section 4 of the Act prohibits a dominant enterprise from imposing unfair prices or restricting services to create artificial scarcity. The airline argued, in its defence, that the CCI lacked jurisdiction to act against it. It contended that the civil aviation sector is governed by the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, and the Aircraft Rules, 1937. It claimed that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has exclusive power to regulate airfares and tariffs, citing Rule 135(4) which allows the DGCA to issue directions regarding “excessive” or “predatory” tariffs. However, the CCI rejected this argument. It clarified that while the DGCA handles sectoral regulations like safety and licensing, it does not have the mandate to conduct competition law analysis, such as defining relevant markets or assessing abuse of dominance. Relying on a 2019 Supreme Court judgment, the CCI asserted that sectoral regulation does not grant immunity from competition law. The CCI noted that IndiGo holds a “position of dominance” in the “market for domestic air passenger transport services in India”. DGCA data showed that in the financial year 2024-25, IndiGo held a market share of approximately 63 per cent in terms of passenger volume and operated as the sole carrier on over 330 routes in late 2025. The CCI observed that by cancelling thousands of flights, IndiGo effectively withheld services, creating artificial scarcity during peak demand. This conduct prima facie appeared to violate the Competition Act. The CCI has directed its director general to investigate the matter and submit a report within 90 days. Passenger ‘agony’ Since December, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court led by Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya has also been hearing a PIL petition seeking refunds and support for affected passengers. During the hearings, the court pulled up the Centre and the DGCA for failing to act before the crisis unfolded. The court had specifically flagged the issue of surge pricing by other airlines, taking advantage of IndiGo’s cancellations. The bench directed IndiGo to strictly adhere to a 2010 DGCA circular regarding compensation. The court emphasised that compensation should not just cover ticket costs but also the “agony” caused to passengers. “Think of those who got stranded for a week… [there has to be] compensation not only for cancellations but also other damages [for the passengers’] sufferings and agony,” Chief Justice Upadhyaya said in a hearing on December 10. The court has asked IndiGo to file an affidavit detailing the refunds and compensation it had issued to passengers. The matter is set to be heard next on February 25. Pilot fatigue and safety norms The third legal front IndiGo is facing is another PIL, filed by a former aircraft engineer, a crew resource management trainer and a social worker, challenging the DGCA’s relaxation of pilot fatigue norms. To ensure passenger safety, pilots must follow strict work schedules known as Flight Duty Time Limitations (FDTL). A key part of these rules is a mandatory “weekly rest” period – currently 48 hours – during which pilots are not allowed to fly so as to recover from fatigue. On December 5, 2025, the DGCA withdrew a rule stating “no leave shall be substituted for weekly rest”, effectively allowing airlines to count personal leave toward mandatory safety breaks. The petition also highlights a temporary exemption granted specifically to IndiGo regarding night duties. While new FDTL norms capped night landings – defined as landings between midnight and 6 am – at two in a single shift to prevent fatigue, the DGCA allowed IndiGo pilots to perform up to six landings during night shifts and changed the definition of night landing from midnight to 5 am for its pilots. This exemption was granted till February 10. The petitioners argue that the “illegal dilution” of safety rules increases accident risks. They had also sought that airlines be barred from using the “low cost airline” label on the ground that it lacks statutory definition and is used as a “shield to justify denial of basic passenger facilities”. The High Court questioned the rationale behind the DGCA’s “indefinite” withdrawal of the rest clause. “The regulator has prescribed a certain period of rest for the pilots. This has a direct link to passenger safety,” the Chief Justice observed on January 28, issuing notice to the DGCA and IndiGo. On January 30, the High Court granted the DGCA and IndiGo two weeks to file their replies.