Now Reading: ‘Don’t travel by air’: SC refuses urgent hearing on 700% fare hike plea
-
01
‘Don’t travel by air’: SC refuses urgent hearing on 700% fare hike plea
‘Don’t travel by air’: SC refuses urgent hearing on 700% fare hike plea
The Story in Brief
The Supreme Court on Monday, 2 November 2026, refused an urgent hearing on a plea alleging a nearly 700% increase in airfares, with Justice Vikram Nath telling the lawyer, ‘Don’t travel by air. Next case.’ The bench, also comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Aparesh Kumar Singh, declined to take up the submission and moved to the next matter without passing any order.
The lawyer had argued that air travel is an essential service and the steep hike violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The court is already hearing a separate PIL by social activist S Laxminarayanan seeking an independent regulator for transparent airfare pricing. On 16 October, the Centre told the court that rules under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, had been finalised and would be published within two weeks. The next hearing on the PIL is scheduled for 16 November.
Update, 2 November 2026: Orissa Post now also reports the Supreme Court’s refusal to urgently list the plea alleging a 700% airfare hike. The outlet reproduces the same courtroom exchange and background as earlier reports, confirming Justice Vikram Nath’s remark ‘Don’t travel by air,’ and adds no new fact beyond the 16 November hearing date already noted.
Indian Opinion Analysis
The new coverage from Orissa Post duplicates the facts already reported by Times Now and Times of India, Justice Vikram Nath telling a lawyer ‘Don’t travel by air’ and refusing an urgent listing of a plea alleging a 700% airfare hike. The Times of India adds that the government will not regulate airfares under new rules from 1 January 2027, except in extraordinary circumstances, Orissa Post, like Business Standard, omits that policy detail. All five sources treat the courtroom exchange as the lead, but the Times of India frames it as a hard policy choice, while the others stay close to the bench’s one-line remark. The update from Orissa Post confirms the event but adds no new fact beyond what was already reported on 2 November.
Coverage: 4 sources, 1 government-critical, 2 neutral, 1 sensationalist
Sources (4): timesnownews.com (sensationalist), timesofindia.indiatimes.com (government critical), mathrubhumi.com (neutral report), Syndicated copy (carried by business-standard.com, orissapost.com)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 4 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Methodology and corrections.
