On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court declined to entertain a fresh Public Interest Litigation demanding four times compensation from IndiGo for recent mass flight cancellations and a judicial inquiry against the aviation regulator, holding that the issues are already under judicial consideration and warning against parallel proceedings that add little to passenger relief.
The case arose from a plea filed by the Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change, which alleged that regulatory failures by IndiGo and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) had resulted in large-scale disruption, affecting over 12.5 lakh passengers through more than 5,000 flight cancellations in December, with several refunds remaining unresolved. The petitioner sought enhanced compensation, a class-action framework, and directions against the regulator, contending that enforcement measures had been weak and disproportionately lenient towards major airlines. Opposing the plea, the Union Government and the DGCA pointed out that an earlier petition concerning the same cancellations is already pending before the Court, where issues of regulatory compliance and passenger compensation are under active consideration, including on the basis of a DGCA report yet to be placed on record.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela questioned the need for duplicative litigation, asking, “What benefit is anyone going to get from multiplicity of matters?” The Bench noted that some prayers, such as class-wide relief, have alternate statutory pathways and reiterated that compensation issues would be assessed in the pending case after the DGCA places its report on record. Emphasising judicial economy and orderly adjudication, the Court suggested that the petitioner seek impleadment in the ongoing proceedings rather than pursue a standalone PIL.
Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the fresh petition.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
