Delhi High Court turns down plea seeking fourfold refund for IndiGo cancelations

The Delhi High Court on December 17 declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a class action and compensation amounting to four times the ticket cost for IndiGo passengers whose flights were canceled earlier this month, holding that the issues raised were already under judicial consideration.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, however, granted liberty to the petitioner — think tank Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC) — to move an application to intervene in an already pending PIL before the High Court that is examining various aspects of the aviation sector disruption linked to IndiGo.

CASC had approached the court seeking directions to the government and IndiGo to compensate affected passengers at four times the value of their cancelled tickets. The plea also urged the government to initiate class action proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, for damages allegedly suffered by passengers due to large-scale cancellations.

In addition, the PIL sought an independent inquiry — by a retired judge or the Lokpal — into the alleged negligence and lapses on the part of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).

The bench noted that the High Court had “already taken cognizance of a PIL” concerning the same episode, and observed that the grievances raised by CASC could be effectively addressed within the scope of the existing proceedings. “The issues raised in this petition can very well be pleaded in the said writ petition,” the court said, deeming it appropriate for the petitioner to seek intervention rather than pursue a parallel case.

While CASC argued that the reliefs sought in its plea were distinct from those in the earlier PIL, the court disagreed, recording in its order that there was no reason the concerns raised could not be considered in the ongoing matter. The bench underlined that PIL jurisprudence, as developed by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, allows courts to expand the scope of an existing petition where public interest so demands.

With this, the court declined to entertain the fresh PIL but kept the door open for CASC to place its concerns before the bench already seized of the broader aviation crisis.