The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a fresh public interest litigation (PIL) that sought substantial compensation for passengers impacted by the recent operational crisis at IndiGo. The plea had demanded payment equivalent to four times the ticket value for affected flyers.
Court Directs Petitioner to Join Existing Case
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela delivered the ruling on Wednesday, December 17, 2025. The bench observed that the issues raised in the new petition could be effectively argued within the framework of an already pending PIL concerning the same IndiGo-induced chaos.
The court permitted the petitioner, the think tank Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC), to file an application to intervene in the existing proceedings. This move consolidates all related grievances under one judicial review.
Key Demands of the Rejected PIL
The dismissed PIL had put forth several significant demands from the government and the airline:
- Direction to pay compensation at four times the value of tickets for all cancelled flights.
- Initiation of proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to award damages for passenger suffering.
- An independent inquiry led by a retired judge or Lokpal to investigate alleged negligence and lapses by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).
Judicial Reasoning and Precedent
The bench firmly stated that it saw no reason why the concerns highlighted in this new PIL could not be addressed in the earlier petition. It referenced the flexible jurisprudence around PILs developed by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, which allows courts to expand the scope of a petition if it serves the public interest.
This decision comes on the heels of the court's actions last week in the existing PIL. In that hearing, the Delhi HC had directed IndiGo to strictly follow DGCA's 2010 guidelines on compensation for denied boarding, cancellations, and delays.
Furthermore, the court had previously questioned the Centre's role, asking why preventive action wasn't taken before the crisis escalated. It also raised critical concerns about surge pricing by other airlines who allegedly capitalized on the situation by charging exorbitant fares from stranded passengers.
The court's latest refusal to initiate a separate proceeding streamlines the legal process, ensuring all aspects of the IndiGo disruption—from passenger compensation to regulatory accountability—are examined cohesively in one forum.
