The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Central government to explain the reasons behind disparity in the airfare of the Calicut-Jeddah route, as compared to other routes in the state of Kerala for the 2025 Hajj.
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh observed that although there was no dispute that the airfare had been fixed through the intervention of the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs, the fixation of airfare was relatable to the viability of airlines.
If it was found that the fare therein could not be acceded to, the Ministry should upload an order on its website within a week, stating brief reasons on why the airfare on Calicut-Jeddah route was higher as compared to other routes in the state of Kerala, noted the Bench.
The petitioners sought intervention of the Apex Court on the grounds that excess airfare was being charged from Hajj pilgrims travelling from Calicut to Jeddah (as compared to other locations in Kerala).
As per the plea, while the airfare of Rs 86000 and Rs 85000 was being charged from the pilgrims travelling from Kochi-Jeddah and Kannur-Jeddah respectively, an exorbitant airfare of around Rs 1,25,000 was being charged from those travelling on the Calicut-Jeddah route.
In terms of distance, the plea noted that while the distance between Kochi and Jeddah was 4,170 km, it was 4086 km away between Calicut and Jeddah. The petitioners alleged arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution regarding disparity in airfare pricing.
Dismissing a petition seeking rationalisation of airfare structure across Kerala for the 2025 Hajj, the top court of the country observed that since this was a commercial policy decision, it would not be prudent for this Court to express any opinion on the matter.
In fact, any intervention by this Court would be counter-productive for the Hajj pilgrims, as in the event of recusal by any airline to fly on the agreed rates, it was likely to cause irreversible hardship to them, it added.
Noting that the petitioners had made a detailed representation seeking intervention of the Government of India, but no response was received, the Bench directed Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the respondents, to instruct the competent authority to examine the representation.
The petitioners sought a direction to the Respondents to rationalise and rectify the airfare structure for Haj 2025 to ensure uniformity and fairness among all embarkation points in Kerala.
The plea further sought direction to the Respondents to permit the petitioners to change the Embarkation Point from Calicut to any other Airport of their choice, within a timeframe to be fixed by the Court.
It also requested the top court of the country to issue a direction to the Respondents to refund/reimburse the excess airfare charged to the affected pilgrims from Calicut International Airport.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, representing the petitioners, contended that about 5500 other pilgrims were similarly situated.
The petitioners contended that they have to board for the pilgrimage (to Jeddah) from Calicut, where the airfare was Rs 1,25,000, even though the airfare from two other points in Kerala – Kochi and Kannur was Rs 87,000 and Rs 85,000, respectively.
The Apex Court remarked that it probably happened due to the kind of expenditure an airline incurred on a particular airport.
The Senior Counsel, however, emphasised that the price differential was approximately Rs 40,000 across different locations within the state. He said the Hajj pilgirms were poor persons and as such, the price differential mattered to them. He argued that on the face of it, the differential was arbitrary.
Senior Advocate Farasat further contended that the pilgrimage was preceded by the issuance of a tender by the Ministry of Minority Affairs.
Only one airline, however, got the tender and enjoyed monopoly, he added.
The Bench asked what would happen if the airline refused to operate, saying that it was not viable for it.
The Counsel said the prices were controlled by the government, not the market forces.
The Apex Court then observed that the government was not controlling the airline in a regulatory manner.