Veer Vikrant Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that it would be extremely slow to interfere with tariff fixation and economic matters decided by the Government, especially when exercised under statutory powers like Section 8B(1) of the Aircraft Act, 1934, which allows the Central Government to take measures to minimize public health dangers during epidemics. The Court found the fixation of minimum and maximum fares, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the stated objective of restricting travel to essential purposes, to be neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The order was also noted to be a temporary 'stop gap arrangement' for three months. The Court considered the fixation of fares a complex policy decision that it was not inclined to interfere with, especially through a public interest litigation. The Court stated it was not going into the merits of the case, acknowledging the unique circumstances requiring experimental solutions and giving the government some latitude. The Court also noted that aggrieved individuals could approach the competent authority.

Facts

The petitioner, Veer Vikrant Chauhan, filed a public interest litigation challenging an order dated May 21, 2020, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation. This order fixed minimum and maximum airfares for domestic civil flight operations. The petitioner specifically highlighted that for Sector-D, the minimum fare was fixed at ₹3,500. However, the petitioner presented evidence of flight tickets from Delhi to Kolkata for August 4, 2020, priced between ₹2,924 and ₹3,153, which were cheaper than the prescribed minimum. The petitioner argued this discrepancy indicated a potential cartel among airlines and arbitrary price fixation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the fixation of minimum airfare by the Central Government under the Aircraft Act, 1934, for domestic civil flight operations during the COVID-19 pandemic is arbitrary or unreasonable, thereby warranting interference by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the minimum fare fixed by the Government was arbitrary, as evidenced by cheaper tickets available for sale, suggesting a potential cartel among airlines. They sought to set aside the order and direct clarification of vague provisions. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents, through the Central Government, argued that the fixation of fares, including minimum fares, was a policy decision taken in exercise of powers under the Aircraft Act, 1934, to manage air travel during the pandemic, restrict travel to essential purposes, and strike a balance between passengers and airlines. They contended that such economic policy decisions are generally not subject to judicial review unless found to be wholly arbitrary or unreasonable.