IndiGo crisis.
Credit: PTI
The penalty of Rs 22.2 crore imposed by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on InterGlobe Aviation, the operator of IndiGo, for the large-scale flight disruptions in December, is inadequate and way less than proportionate. The cancellations and delays caused not just inconvenience, but trauma and large-scale financial losses to lakhs of passengers. It was reported that over 2,500 flights were cancelled and about 1,800 were delayed. These disruptions affected personal and professional schedules and caused huge losses by way of missed appointments or opportunities, and spending on alternative flights and arrangements. They caused not just a loss of image to the airline, but affected the reputation of the country’s aviation sector – Rs 22 crore is too small a price for that.
The action was initiated based on the findings of an inquiry ordered by the government and conducted by a committee appointed by the DGCA. Over-optimisation of operations, deficiencies in planning software and management protocols, and inadequate regulatory preparedness were the major causes of the disruption, the committee reported. It has been noted that the airline failed to maintain operational buffers and did not implement the revised Flight Duty Time Limitations (FDTL) norms. These are serious lapses resulting from a policy the airline had consciously pursued. This approach may also have been a result of the airline’s dominance in the sector and the influence it wields. Such deliberate flouting of norms and casual attitude to passengers’ convenience deserved a higher penalty than a rap on the knuckles.
IndiGo’s top leadership, including the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Pieter Elbers, has only been issued notes of caution for inadequate oversight and crisis management. The DGCA did not consider any of them deserving of substantial penal actions. Only one senior official was removed from his position. The penalty amount is a pittance, considering that the airline earned a profit of Rs 7,253 crore in 2024-25. Penalties in such cases are, as a norm, framed to hurt the erring entity, especially when the lapses are the result of a deliberate policy. They are also finalised by considering the impact of the lapses. The penalties imposed by the DGCA cannot be considered to have any deterrent effect. The airline’s thinking that it could get away with its actions has only been validated with this lenient response. The committee’s report mentioned “inadequate regulatory preparedness” as a reason for the crisis. The DGCA is responsible for it, and it is not known if anyone has been held accountable for this failure.