Investigation into Alleged Abuse of Dominance by InterGlobe Aviation Limited · Case No. 44 of 2025

Case No. 44 of 2025

1

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Case No. 44 of 2025 In Re:

Kartikeya Rawal A-401, Tower 1, Vajram Newtown, Thanissandra Main Road, Bengaluru - 560064 …Informant And

InterGlobe Aviation Limited Upper Ground Floor, Thapar House, Gate No. 2, Western Wing, 124 Janpath, New Delhi 110001 …Opposite Party

CORAM:

Ms. Ravneet Kaur Chairperson

Mr. Anil Agrawal Member

Ms. Sweta Kakkad Member

Mr. Deepak Anurag Member

Order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002

1. The present Information has been filed by the Kartikeya Rawal (‘Informant’) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’), against InterGlobe Aviation Limited (‘Opposite Party’ / ‘OP’/ ‘IndiGo’), alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

Case No. 44 of 2025

2

2. The Informant has stated that IndiGo is India's largest airline carrier by fleet and market share. In the first week of December 2025, the airline cancelled hundreds of flights, causing an unprecedented disruption in the aviation industry, leaving lakhs of passengers stranded across the country with no means to return to their homes or make important business travels. Eyeing the opportunity, almost all other available airlines substantially increased the prices for seats across sectors.

3. As per the Information, on 04.12.2025, the Informant travelled from Bengaluru to Delhi and had booked a return journey on the Delhi–Goa–Bengaluru sector scheduled for 05.12.2025 on IndiGo Flight No. 6E 2063 with a connecting Flight No. 6E 6163, vide PNR No. X3PZUY, for INR.7,173/-. The return flights were cancelled by IndiGo a few hours before the scheduled departure time, and no alternate travel arrangement was provided by them. Thus, the Informant had to make his own arrangements. Upon trying to book alternate flights, the informant observed that apart from the seats offered by the other airlines, the seats being offered by IndiGo were being offered at a much higher fare than the usual fare on the same sectors.

4. Informant further submitted that in his own limited experience of being a flyer, the fares were much above average when compared with the fares of flights on the same sectors during the same week last year or the average ticket fare in the preceding 3 months. Because of this, even the Informant had to wait for 2 days and then finally travel back to Bangalore on a much more expensive fare of INR 17000/- on a different flight operated by IndiGo. This conduct of IndiGo of cancelling its own flights on its own accord and then overcharging the customers is an abuse of dominance and prohibited under the provisions of the Act.

5. With the permission of the Chairperson, the matter was considered in the ordinary meeting of the Commission held on 18.12.2025, and the Commission vide order of even date decided to forward a copy of the Information to the OP, directing it to file its reply within two (2) weeks from receipt of the order. The OP was also directed to furnish, inter alia, within the same period, details relating to aircrafts deployed and market share for Financial Year (‘FY’) 2023–24 and FY 2024–25, slot availability and market share at

Case No. 44 of 2025

3

various domestic airports, overall market share in terms of revenue and seat capacity, route-wise data on flights affected and fares during 1st–15th December 2025, identification of sole-operator routes, comparative fare analysis with previous periods, information on fare caps and dynamic pricing, underutilised slots at major airports and access offered to rivals, remedial measures adopted to address consumer issues, and details of bookings permitted on routes already cancelled in advance.

6. Additionally, vide separate order dated 18.12.2025, and, for further appreciation of the matter, the Commission decided to seek from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (‘DGCA’), within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the said order, inter alia, information relating to the domestic aviation market structure and market shares for FY 2023–24 and FY 2024–25; airline-wise capacity, passenger traffic and month-wise passenger data for the year 2025; identification of routes where IndiGo operated as the sole airline; year-wise revenue details of airlines from FY 2021–22 to FY 2024–25; route-wise and category-wise average fares during the period from 1–15 December 2025; and details of routes and passengers affected by the disruptions along with comparative fare data of IndiGo and competing airlines.

7. IndiGo submitted its response on 12.01.2026 (dated 10.01.2026), wherein instead of furnishing replies to the queries raised by the Commission, it has contended that the subject matter of the Information does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission, requesting that no further action be taken in the matter. IndiGo has further prayed that the Commission should first adjudicate upon and pass an order on the issue of jurisdiction and the submissions raised in its response before proceeding any further with the captioned matter.

8. In support of its objections, IndiGo has, inter alia, submitted that the subject matter of the case is squarely covered under the Bhartiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 (‘BVA’) and the Aircraft Rules, 1937, under which the DGCA has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues raised. According to IndiGo, the BVA read with the Aircraft Rules constitutes a complete, comprehensive and self-contained regulatory regime governing the civil aviation sector, including matters relating to excessive pricing, unfair practices and

Case No. 44 of 2025

4

oligopolistic behaviour, and provides adequate checks and balances to address potential market distortions. It has further submitted that fixation of airfares is subject to continuous regulatory oversight and intervention by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the DGCA, including imposition of fare ceilings and pricing norms in the public interest, thereby demonstrating that airfare regulation squarely lies within the regulatory domain of the DGCA.

9. IndiGo has further contended that where Parliament has enacted a specialised and complete regulatory framework such as the BVA, the jurisdiction of the Commission stands impliedly excluded even in respect of allegations of abuse of dominance, and any parallel or concurrent exercise of jurisdiction would be legally untenable. It has been submitted that the Competition Act does not empower the Commission to examine the adequacy or effectiveness of sectoral regulatory frameworks and, therefore, any intervention by the Commission in matters falling within the exclusive remit of the DGCA would amount to an impermissible assumption of jurisdiction. IndiGo has also argued that the BVA, being a subsequent and specialised legislation, impliedly overrides the Act in respect of matters expressly governed thereunder.

10. IndiGo has additionally submitted that where a sectoral statute provides adequate and effective remedies for its contravention, recourse to the Act is neither necessary nor warranted, particularly when the DGCA is vested with substantive regulatory, enforcement and penal powers under the BVA and the Aircraft Rules. It has further contended that any residual individual consumer grievances relating to service outcomes, such as flight cancellations or consequential pricing concerns, are appropriately redressed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and do not give rise to a cause of action under the Act.

11. DGCA provided its response vide email dated 13.01.2026, wherein it, inter alia, stated that, as per the prevailing regulatory framework, airfares are not regulated by the DGCA and that the DGCA has not been vested with economic regulatory powers in respect of civil aviation and air transport services under the BVA. DGCA further stated that, in terms of Rule 135 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, every air transport undertaking operating