IndiGo crisis: Delhi HC to take up PIL on Dec 10

As hundreds of IndiGo flights continue to get cancelled, the Delhi High Court on Monday agreed to hear on December 10 a petition on the issue even as the Supreme Court refused to urgently take up another petition seeking judicial intervention to deal with the crisis.

A Bench led by Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya listed for hearing on Wednesday a petition seeking directions to the Centre to provide support and refunds to passengers affected by cancellation of hundreds of flights by IndiGo after a lawyer mentioned the PIL for urgent hearing, describing the situation as “inhumane”.

The petitioner’s counsel complained of inadequate ground support, poor communication and lack of a streamlined refund process.

“Several people are stuck. The ground situation at airports is inhumane. We are expecting orders to IndiGo and ground support staff,” the lawyer said, adding that cancellations were not being timely communicated to passengers.

Acknowledging that certain directions had already been issued by the government, the high court chose to list the PIL for hearing on Wednesday.

IndiGo cancelled 500 flights and plans to operate 1,802 services on Monday, the Civil Aviation Ministry said.

The Supreme Court termed the chaos created by such a large number of flight cancellation a “serious matter”, but refused to intervene immediately, saying the government had already taken cognisance of the issue.

On behalf of the petitioner, an advocate mentioned the matter before a Bench led by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and sought urgent listing of the petition on the ground that thousands of flights had been cancelled and lakhs of passengers were facing problems.

“It is a serious matter. Lakhs of people are stranded at airports. We know people may be having urgent work… health issues etc… But the Government of India has taken cognisance. Timely action appears to have been taken. Let them handle it… Let us see what happens after some time. There is no urgency right now,” the CJI told the petitioner’s counsel.