Grounded flights, grounded rights: IndiGo and a dual regulatory scrutiny

In December 2025, IndiGo Airlines cancelled nearly 5,000 flights, affecting around eight lakh passengers. The airline attributed the disruption to aircraft-on-ground issues, weather-related congestion, and operational constraints, particularly a shortage of pilots arising from difficulties in implementing new flight duty time limitations (FTDL). While operational requirements demanded 2,422 captains, only 2,357 were available. Passengers faced last-minute cancellations, higher rebooking costs and disrupted travel plans. In response to the systemic disruption, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) placed its FDTL orders in abeyance. 

Facilities to be provided to air passengers in cases of denied boarding, flight cancellations and delays are governed by the DGCA Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR). Airlines are required to promptly inform passengers of disruptions and offer alternatives such as rebooking or refunds, failing which statutory compensation, airport facilities and care obligations arise. For prolonged delays, airlines must provide re-accommodation or refunds, with the burden on the airline to prove timely passenger communication. 

The Government of India ordered a high-level inquiry to identify failures and fix accountability. The DGCA terminated four Flight Operations Inspectors of IndiGo, while the Competition Commission of India (CCI) initiated a suo motu inquiry. The ministries of civil aviation and consumer affairs have also begun discussions on structural reforms.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, confers on the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) a broad, market-wide mandate to protect consumer interests and address unfair or misleading practices affecting consumers as a class. On the basis of public information, CCPA intervention may be warranted where tickets were sold for flights later cancelled at short notice, cancellations were not transparently communicated, refund timelines were uncertain and consumer harm was widespread. Potential grounds for action include misleading representations regarding service availability, exacerbation of information asymmetry through delayed communication, unfair trade practices involving last-minute cancellations and limited rebooking options, and deficiencies in post-cancellation customer service.

Comparative regulatory experience underscores the seriousness with which such conduct is treated in concentrated aviation markets. In 2024, Australia’s Federal Court imposed a penalty of AU$100 million on Qantas for misleading consumers by selling tickets for flights already decided to be cancelled and failing to promptly inform passengers, following proceedings initiated by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Qantas admitted that senior management was aware of these practices and accepted that delayed system updates generated revenue, impeded customer switching and deferred the costs of timely corrective measures.

IndiGo could arguably have anticipated similar lapses, given that the new FTDL norms were notified 18 months in advance. Despite adding nearly 200 daily flights in 2025, it hired only 418 pilots against an estimated requirement of 1,000 to comply with revised roster limits. Notwithstanding the impending deadline, IndiGo continued accepting bookings at full capacity. Media reports suggest opaque delay-management practices, whereby delays were extended incrementally, prompting passengers to cancel bookings themselves and incur cancellation charges. If established, such conduct may justify CCPA action without affecting individual remedies.

The Competition Act, 2002, empowers CCI to enquire into the conduct that causes appreciable adverse effects on competition, including abuse of dominant position. In civil aviation, market definition has often followed the origin-and-destination (O&D) pair approach, treating each route as a distinct relevant market based on demand substitutability (Jet-Etihad merger, 2013). However, where consumer harm flows from system-wide operational decisions rather than route-specific conduct, competition authorities have also accepted a broader market definition encompassing domestic scheduled passenger air transport services (South African Airways Ltd, 2005).  In this case, large-scale cancellations affecting passengers across regions, coupled with a uniform national regulatory framework, support such a market definition.

IndiGo accounted for approximately 63% of domestic passengers in FY 2025, with Air India at 13.6% and other airlines holding significantly smaller shares in terms of passengers and seat capacity (Statista 2025). Among carriers, IndiGo continues to dominate with the highest market share, supported by a strong fleet and extensive domestic and international routes. (IBEF) IndiGo carried the highest number of passengers in FY 2024 (10,64,02,783), with Air India a distant second (2,35,15,707). Commercial aviation comprised 85.8% of India’s aviation market in FY 2024, with IndiGo holding around 57%. This dominance reflects sustained growth, including a 24.79% year-on-year increase. Public sources consistently characterise the sector as highly concentrated, with IndiGo itself describing its position as “India’s largest and most preferred passenger airline”. Given IndiGo’s nationwide network, high route frequencies, and strong presence across tier-2 and tier-3 cities, passengers often face limited comparable alternatives. The reported disruptions indicate systemic consumer harm rather than mere diversion of demand to competitors.

Some media reports indicated that during the December 2025 disruption, IndiGo undertook large-scale flight cancellations while allegedly continuing to sell tickets for flights that had already been cancelled or were likely to be cancelled; delayed timely communication of cancellations to passengers; and subjected consumers to prolonged uncertainty regarding rebooking and refunds. Cancellations were allegedly staggered or conveyed incrementally, often prompting passengers to cancel bookings themselves and incur cancellation charges instead of receiving airline-initiated refunds. Given IndiGo’s position as the largest domestic airline, such conduct, if established, may be relevant to an examination of abuse of dominant position, as it could have affected consumer choice, switching possibilities, and market outcomes on a nationwide scale. These circumstances are sufficient to justify a CCI investigation for violation of section 4 of the Act (abuse of dominance). In this context, CCI intervention would complement CCPA action by addressing structural competition concerns beyond individual consumer grievances.

(The writers are faculty members at NLSIU, Bengaluru)