The Delhi High Court declined to entertain the new Public Interest Litigation (PIL) because a similar case on the IndiGo flight cancellation crisis is already pending before the court. The bench held that filing multiple PILs on the same issue does not serve public interest and instead creates duplication.

Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made it clear that if the petitioner had concerns about compensation or enforcement, the correct legal route was to seek implementation or expansion of relief in the already-pending PIL, not to file a fresh one.

The court also questioned the intent behind filing a separate PIL, stating that PILs are not meant for profiteering or parallel litigation.

Key reasons for rejection

1. Matter already under consideration
   The court noted that all issues raised in the new petition — compensation, DGCA’s role, and airline accountability — are already being examined in an earlier PIL related to the IndiGo crisis.

2. No bar on expanding relief in an existing PIL
   The bench observed that courts have the power to widen the scope of an ongoing PIL if it is genuinely in public interest. Therefore, there was no justification for a separate petition.

3. Contradictory prayers in the petition
   The petitioner sought:

   • A direction to the Centre to initiate a class action suit, and

   • A direction to award four times compensation to passengers.

   The court pointed out that both cannot run together.
   If a class action is initiated under the Consumer Protection Act, the quantum of compensation must be decided by the consumer forum, not the High Court.

4. No legal basis for insisting on “four times” compensation
   The bench asked how the petitioner could insist on a fixed multiplier when the law requires damages to be assessed by the appropriate consumer authority.

What the court said

The court remarked that:

• Multiple cases on the same issue will not help passengers.

• If a class action is pursued, compensation cannot be pre-decided by the High Court.

• The petitioner is free to join or intervene in the earlier PIL and raise all concerns there.

Background of the case

• The petition was filed by NGO Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC).

• It alleged that IndiGo’s failure to comply with revised Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) rules caused a nationwide aviation disruption.

• Over 5,000 flights were cancelled, affecting around 1.25 million passengers.

• The petition also sought an independent probe into the DGCA’s alleged negligence.

Earlier, on December 10, the Delhi High Court had already:

• Directed IndiGo to ensure refunds and compensation to affected passengers.

• Asked the central government to take action against erring airlines.