REWIND

New Delhi, 18 December 2025

The People’s Right To Information

By Inder Jit

(Released on 7 August 1984) 

Ignorance continues to abound in regard to Parliament, its constitution, practices, procedures and privileges. Thirty-four years as a sovereign democratic Republic seem to have failed to inform and educate our leaders and public adequately. Even members of Parliament have of late spoken in astonishing terms. Not a few inside Parliament and outside have described the current session of the Lok Sabha as “the last session of Parliament.” True, the present Lok Sabha is now approaching the close of its five-year term meet for its winter session in November. (Contrary to reports, no firm decision has yet been taken about the date of the next general election. Mrs Gandhi, it appears, prefers to play it by the ear.) But the Lok Sabha is not Parliament, notwithstanding the fact that it is directly elected. Parliament is also not the two Houses -- the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. Parliament, according to the Constitution, consists of three elements: the President, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. No single entity, by itself, is Parliament.

Equally, the basic concept of a parliamentary form of Government is still not understood, even among our parliamentarians. The system provides for an orderly form of government by discussion and debate. As Leo Amery wrote in Thoughts on the Constitution, “the main task of Parliament is still what it was when first summoned, not to legislate or govern but to secure full discussion and ventilation of all matters.” Parliament is essentially a critical forum or, as described by Lloyd George, “the sounding board of the nation” which derives its influence from its ability to speak to and to speak for the people. Yet, thanks to an unfortunate failure of leadership on both sides of the two Houses --- the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha - parliamentary form of Government in India is fast becoming a Government not by debate and discussion in the true sense of the term but a Government by speeches or, more appropriately, a government by “bhashans”. There is less and less of orderly give and take. Even accepted norms of conduct and parliamentary niceties patiently sought to be promoted by Nehru -- have fallen by the wayside.

Most discussions in the Lok Sabha and with speeches from the two sides are with little of the cut and thrust of a vigorous debate, except on rare occasions. Nehru graciously yielded whenever any Opposition member sought to interrupt him in the course of his reply to a debate to elicit a clarification or information. No MP of the ruling party was permitted, much less encouraged, by Nehru, who spent long hours in the House, to heckle or shout down Opposition members. Nothing of the kind happens any more, especially where the Prime Minister is concerned. Mrs Gandhi appears less and less inclined to be interrupted to offer explanations or clarifications as at her Press conferences. (Remember, Mrs Gandhi, at her Press conferences, allows one question one person to give an opportunity to the largest number of newsmen. This procedure, however, bars alert and probing newsmen from following up with searching supplementaries.) The “halla” (shouting) groups Congress-I members make things easier for Mrs Gandhi, even before she has time to say “no”.

Parliament and through it the country stand to gain in any give and take in a debate. The MPs themselves benefit, as in the recent stage case involving Prof Madhu Dandvate and Mr Rajiv Gandhi at one stage and Mr Indrajit Gupta and Mr Rajiv Gandhi at another in the Lok Sabha discussion on Punjab. Both Prof Dandvate and Mr Gupta gracefully yielded to Mr Rajiv Gandhi when the latter sought an opportunity to clarify that he had never described Bhindranwale as a religious leader and had, in fact, strongly criticised him. Dandvate and Mr Gupta added to their parliamentary stature by upholding the best parliamentary norm and yielding to Mr Gandhi. And Rajiv Gandhi, for his part, not only set the record straight but impressed one and all with his unsuspected ability to cross swords with seasoned parliamentarians tactfully ---reminding many Parliament watchers of his father, the late Feroze Gandhi, one of free India’s most effective parliamentarians. Interestingly, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, who has a rich voice like his father’s, sits close to where Feroze Gandhi adorned the non-official benches.

Alas, the Opposition is even more at fault. It often fails to play its role and, in the bargain, makes things easier for the Treasury benches. Nothing illustrates this more than the debate on the scandalous and painful happenings in Kashmir. Both Mr George Fernandez, Janata, and Mr Ram Jethmalani, Bharatiya Janata Party, made powerful speeches and blasted both the Centre and the Governor for the havoc played in Srinagar. Unfortunately, however, both were missing when the new Home Minister, Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao, wound up the discussion even if he did so late in the evening in a debate which seemed to go on interminably. With what result? Mr Narasimha Rao was able to get away with blue murder on some basic issues through a slick impressive presentation. In fact, Mr Narasimha Rao was even able to say that the Opposition had little interest in principles. Said he: “Mr Nar Bahadur Bhandari, Congress- I Chief Minister in Sikkim, was dismissed. But he went unwept and unhonoured”. None from the Opposition challenged his tongue-in-the-cheek statement.

That, however, is only one bit. The Opposition has been behaving astonishingly even otherwise against its own interest. It has, at least, twice in the current session demanded suspension of the Question Hour. Mercifully, the Speaker, Mr Bal Ram Jakhar, overruled the demand. Clearly, the Opposition wanted to emphasize the importance it gave to the Kashmir developments in proposing a virtual adjournment motion on the opening day. But in doing so they allowed their better judgment to run away with their anger over the happenings --- and their desire to demonstrate their support for Dr Farooq Abdullah. The Question Hour is in many ways the most important hour for the Opposition and the back-benchers on both sides of the House and has even been described by some experts as the “sacred hour”. The Government under the Constitution, as we all know, is responsible to Parliament. The Question Hour translates this to reality in practice and ensures the Government’s accountability. It has also been described as the hyphen that links Parliament to the Government.

Undoubtedly, the Question Hour is the most powerful instrument available to the Opposition and, indeed, to all private members belonging to the ruling party. It enshrines Parliament’s right to know and through it the people’s right to information. The Question Hour in its present form is unique and is practised at present only in Britain and India. It is a part of the daily sittings of the House. Yet it is set apart as an hour itself because Parliament’s first prerogative is to get information. It is held from 11 to 12 noon and precedes the “zero hour” -- or what is called the Public Business in Commons. Since the Question Hour entitles the private members to put questions on anything which comes within the framework of Government or national activities, the rules of the House ensure that the Government does not find an excuse to avoid questions or to conveniently slip out of the dock. The rules provide that there “shall’ be a Question Hour. In Britain, too, it comes right at the beginning.

The Question Hour serves two other purposes. It provides back-benchers with an opportunity to probe the intelligence and honesty of senior Ministers, even the Prime Minister. It is an occasion which all members may enjoy and benefit from. There is likely to be something for everyone without having to listen to long speeches. It also needs to be remembered that a Minster personally handles very few of the day-to-day decisions which are taken by his civil servants in his name. These decisions are, of course, made in a way which the official thinks conforms to ministerial policy. A question about one of these decisions brings the case on to the Minister’s desk. The decision may have been taken at quite a low level in the department. It now is looked at by the senior members of the department -- the Secretary as well as the Minister. But the fact that the Minister has to give the answer in a full House and to be prepared for supplementaries helps in keeping him on his toes.

The crucial importance of the right to information is not adequately appreciated. The right to information carries the right to question and, by implication, to control and direct. An interesting story comes to mind and deserves to be retold. Winston Churchill is said to have asked Lord Mountbatten only one question when the latter sought his advice about whether or not he should accept Governor-Generalship of India following independence: “Would you have the right to information?” When Mountbatten replied yes, Churchill said; “Fine. Go ahead.” India’s President enjoys the same right. Alas, however, it has seldom been exercised. Rajen Babu, India’s first President, is known to have exercised it. But he ceased to do so when he discovered that it was beginning to sour his relations with Nehru. Mr B.D. Jatti, as Acting President, exercised it in 1978 and created a sensation and a major problem for the Janata Government which then wanted him to sign an ordinance to dismiss nine State Governments.

Parliament’s right to information has enabled members over the years to bring to light through questions some sensational scandals in Government’s functioning. Prominent among these have been the Jeep scandal, the Mundhra affair which led to the resignation of T.T. Krishnamachari as Finance Minister, the Serajuddin case which led to the exit of K.D. Malaviya from the Cabinet, the Tulmohan Ram affair and, lately, the Kuo oil deal. During the British regime, S. Satyamurthi of the Congress Party, for instance, became a terror through his probing questions. All in all, both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha may not have the power to bend or break the Government, especially where it has a two-thirds majority. But it has the power to influence the Government by exposing its weaknesses and acts of omission and commission. This is vital if one remembers that the ultimate power in our democratic system rests with the people through the ballot box. Parliament has a key role. But this role needs to be fully grasped and exploited.---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 17 December 2025

Modi’s Stress On Duties

CAN RIGHTS BE IGNORED?

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

In his letter to the citizens on ‘Constitution Day’ or ‘Samvidhan Divas’, Prime Minister Modi waxed eloquence on the citizens’ primary responsibility to perform duties without in any way upholding their justiciable fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution or other constitutional rights central to the individuals to lead a dignified life. 

The letter referred to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Birsa Munda and Guru Tegh Bahadur and flimsily claimed that they gave primacy to duties which Modi claimed, “the Constitution also emphasises through a dedicated chapter on fundamental duties in Article 51A.” These duties, he said “guide us on how to collectively achieve social and economic progress,” invoking Mahatma Gandhi who, according to Modi “believed that a duty well performed creates a responding right and that real rights are a result of the performance of duty.” 

Modi may be right in quoting Gandhi who said rights of individuals flowed from the duties, but the latter was always concerned about the poor and the marginalised getting their due share of rights. Gandhi himself moved a resolution on Fundamental Rights in 1931 in the Karachi session of the Indian National Congress and it, among others, contained, Freedom of Press, Freedom to Profess Religion, equal rights and obligations of all citizens, without any bar on account of sex and above all religious neutrality of the state. 

Further, in a letter to M.S. Masani on June 4, 1934, almost three years after he moved the resolution on Fundamental Rights, he wrote, “What is necessary is that labourers or workers should know their rights and should also know how to assert them”. While saying so, he also remarked, “And since there never has been any right with-a corresponding duty, in my opinion a manifesto is incomplete without emphasising the necessity of performance of duty and showing what that duty is. 

The manner in which Modi has been asking citizens to carry out their duties without any obligation of the State to ensure basic rights to the citizens, which have been eroded in recent years, is no doubt a subject of concern. With widening inequality and disparity in wages as well as the fact that the lowest 20 percent of the population are in a pitiable condition, there is a need for the State to think about ensuring a decent livelihood to all citizens. 

Authentic democracy requires transcending this situation and that can be achieved with the institution of a set of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental economic rights on a par with civil and political rights we already have. Though we are rightly proud of our Constitution, it needs to be stated that it does not contain a chapter on fundamental economic rights. Such rights would have made democracy more meaningful and placed India ahead of most countries. However, it needs to be stated that mere institution of such rights is no guarantee that these would be realised. 

Tragically, Modi or his government is little concerned about rights, which are not being enjoyed by a large section which includes unorganised workers, farm labourers, child workers, bonded labourers etc. Though education is a fundamental right, very few have access to quality education up to the higher secondary levels. Health is greatly neglected and every Block does not have even a wellness centre with adequate doctors and other medical staff. 

It has been seen that there is always a discrepancy between promises made by politicians and its implementation. The execution today is riding roughshod over the existing fundamental rights of citizens, and the judiciary is too intimidated to defend these rights consistently. For example, the popular MGNREGS, which conferred a right of sorts on rural households of enjoying 100 days of work, stands violated due to lack of adequate funds. It is indeed surprising that in a country where unemployment and underemployment is a critical problem, the government cannot find the necessary funds to ensure there is work for continuous 100 days a year. Political analysts have found all types of rights are always there for the privileged sections. 

It is only when the average Indian experiences a democratisation of privilege and law, where he no longer sees a distinction between his rights, opportunities and that of those in power, that the seismic shift as envisioned by the Prime Minister will become a reality.  It is difficult to presume that this will happen shortly as it would be extremely difficult to strip the powerful from the extra power and VIP culture enjoyed by them. Wealth, political clout and power should not be allowed to buy immunity, and such people ought to face public scrutiny. 

The sermon about duties may sound somewhat authoritarian, given the fact that a democratic State has the dual responsibility to ensure that duties are performed by its citizens while also seeing to it that they are not deprived of their rights. But unfortunately, the dispossessed and the marginalised are deprived of their rights. How can this happen in a State which talks of democracy, pluralism and inclusiveness? In talking about duties, Modi has generated a debate where political analysts have raised the question of deprivation of rights. 

While there is much talk of the economy moving fast in terms of GDP growth, there is no analysis of how much money is allocated for the welfare of the lowest 20 percent, who are not only poor and marginalised but are also victims to environmental hazards like floods, cyclones and sea-level rise, almost every year. The reason for this is obvious as those who formulate government strategy – whether politicians, bureaucrats or technocrats – have little knowledge and concern about how the poorer sections have to struggle for earning their livelihood. Added to this is the oppression of lower castes and even today, we hear of bonded labour, and the dispensation is virtually not quite conscious of such things being existent even today in the country. 

It goes without saying that basic rights must be ensured to all sections of the population to ensure that happiness and justice prevail in society. When we hear politicians talking frequently of the country’s endeavour of ushering in Viksit Bharat, is it not our duty and responsibility to provide a dignified existence to all our fellow citizens? The parliamentarians as well as academics should consider framing a policy guideline for both the Centre and the states. Meanwhile, budgetary allocations towards ensuring people’s rights are urgently called for.   

Finally, we may refer to Gandhi who had cautioned in the late 30s of the previous century -- “…there are no such two classes here that one of them should exercise only rights and the other discharge only duties”. He remarked: “If a ruler shirks his duties while the people do theirs then the people become the ruler.” A ruler by doing his duty and considering himself as the trustee of his people would survive, he observed, but cautioned “if he becomes authoritarian, he cannot survive in this age.”---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Political Diary

New Delhi, 16 December 2025

Hate Is Now Virtue

MORE ACERBIC THE BETTER!

By Poonam I Kaushish

The more things change the more they remain the same. Whereby our netagan are reveling in neech under-the-belt vitriolic language, swaying to the heady tinkle of cheap thrills and seetees, whereby the lines between a political opponent and sworn enemy have got blurred. In the hope this will bring them political tripti! Acerbic

Nothing epitomizes this better than the daily brazen slanderous tu-tu-mei-mein among our netagan which has trashed basic courtesies and decencies, ended camaraderie, bonhomie and respect among healthy rivals. Underscoring, slander, sensation, smear, sully and smirch are the new political dialogues and flavour of the time. With the devil taking the hindmost! 

Everyone and everything has become game: From desh bhakts to desh drohis. For the Congress, confused about its support base, devoid of a vote plank and desperate about halting BJP it has fallen back to its tried and tested formula --- abuse. More rancorous the better, interspersed with blatant communalism and casteism. Echoed by some others Opposition Parties. God forbid, if anyone questions their misdemeanor, be prepared for open fury, “Main neta hoon, tum kaun?” 

Welcome to the world of arrogance of power or should one say political hate which for them is ‘virtue.’ Yesterday, Lok Sabha adjourned as Congress refused to apologise for a slogan “Modi teri kabar khudegi, aaj nahin toh kal khudegi.” repeatedly raised at a Save India ‘vote-chori’ rally Sunday in Delhi.

Lashed out BJP accusing its rival, “You are publicly threatening, articulating killing rivals, specially Prime Minister. This shows your thinking and mentality.”  Earlier, a senior Congress Minister called Modi “Is Se Khate Hain Ch**iyon Ko Bhakt Bana Na or Bhakton Ko Permanent Ch**iya Bana Na -Jai Ho.”

Conveniently, forgetting it too had attacked “shehzada” Rahul Gandhi by calling him “Moorkhon aur jhooton ka Sardar” who calls himself an “accidental Hindu”….. He does not have proper knowledge of India's history and geography. Then Rahul had shot back “PM matlab Panauti Modi aur jebkatra.”

More. In West Bengal, BJP State President averred, “All brothers of Didi (Mamata) better mend their ways in six months. Otherwise their arms, legs, ribs and heads will be broken. You will either end up in the hospital or the crematorium!” 

If this was appalling, TMC’s Mamta too has addressed Modi, “paapi” while NCP’s Sharad Pawar dubbed him “shameless,” Shiv Sena’s Uddhav Thackeray lamented “vote for Modi is vote for destruction,” BSP called BJP-led NDA “terrorist Government.” AIMM Owaisi took the cake, “Koi maee ka lal pedha nahi hua jo mujhe rok sake…Modi RSS ka peelu hai…. ishara kar diya toh dorana padhega.”

Quick to complain, all shy from demanding the same discipline for crude and repulsive swipes at rivals. Every Party raises allegations of causing hatred and division based on religion, caste, community or language. Worse, instead of feeling remorse, our netas strut and preen like peacocks. Accentuating an inherent mindset of Hum Khaas Hain, which translates to, “I can get away with abuse, the more vengeful the better

Big deal! Aren’t we accustomed to gutter-sniping and vitriolic attacks between political opponents and Parties? Isn’t it part and parcel of political discourse? Of dirty linen being increasingly washed in public serenaded by frenzied audiences more vulgar the better, dil maange more!

Frankly, I am neither surprised as our netagan are only showing their girgit true colours throwing all public decency and decorum to winds! After all, how would their art of double-speak succeed if preachers of morality were to start practicing it? Politics means scoring brownie points against rivals, ends matter not the means. Gone are the days when jibes and trolls were funny, sarcastic and netas took them in their strides.

Accentuating bankruptcy that is manifest in our system wherein leaders have perfected the art of cultivating low morality and high greed made more malignant by our fragmented politics. Resulting in immorality becoming a way of life, what damn difference does one more slanderous attack make?

Sadly, through these diatribes one thing emerges crystal clear: political skullduggery indulged in mirrors the harsh and horrendous reality of our polity. Where there is no dividing line between what is correct and incorrect. A harsh reflection on the depth of political depravation we have come to. In the hope that this cesspit sniping would bring them power.

Undeniably, we seem to live in an India where only ‘powerful’ matter, living life in the slim strip called ‘official’ in a race for privilege. Wherein there is a wide chasm between aam aadmi and our khaas aadmis. Big deal if this leaves a bitter taste in people’s mouth, increasing frustration, disconnect and contempt for rulers which results in defiance by people at large.

Questionably, should our leaders be exempt from making vitriolic derogatory hate speeches while aam aadmi is put behind bars for doing the same? Do they actually deserve this extra importance? Haven’t we had enough? Considering, most rulers barely discharge their responsibilities honestly and honourably. Succinctly, they don’t give a damn. 

Thus, in a political milieu that makes fear and favour its currency, this means the ruler-subject model which should have no place in a democracy becomes routinised. This is unacceptable. Hate speeches against a rival or acerbic speeches to bring a communal divide must be met with exemplary punishment as such crimes undermine public faith in the rule of law and act as steeping stones to further criminalization of politics.

It is simply stupid to lament about falling standards of morality in politics. We must demand equal treatment for noxious speech be it a politician, gig worker or XYZ. Stop voting for shameless, self-serving netas who put a premium on immorality. 

Time for law enforcement machinery to shed its perception of preferential treatment to our political Bahubalis and enforce law in a transparent manner. Parties too must signal zero tolerance policy towards roguery, no matter how big a vote-catcher the accused might be. By making cynical myopic choices Parties are undermining rule of law. 

Clearly, it is time our politicians realize profligacy, immorality cannot be the bedrock of democracy. Our polity needs to tone down divisive and personal attacks, engage each other on issues affecting people and nation, not personalities and put dignified debate back on rails, adopt zero-tolerance stand on offensive language. Political differences should never escalate into personal threats or calls for violence.

The aim: Raise bar on public discourse because if you point one slanderous finger at another, four other slanderous fingers point back at you! How long will we suffer the stampede for sensation and slur? Can a nation be bare and bereft of all sense of shame and morality? ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Economic Highlights

New Delhi, 15 December 2025

IndiGo Saves Rs 1,400 Cr

PASSENGERS LOSE RS 25 BILLION

By Shivaji Sarkar 

The December collapse of IndiGo’s flight network was not an accidental systems failure. It was the logical outcome of months of deliberate under-preparation by a monopoly airline fully aware of what was coming. 

With complete knowledge of the DGCA’s new Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) rules—and a long, generous runway to comply—IndiGo chose not to build the pilot capacity essential to operating under the revised safety norms. The result was predictable: a self-inflicted crisis that disrupted half a million travellers, paralysed airports across the country, and exposed the soft underbelly of India’s regulatory ecosystem, which looked on even as the country’s largest airline flew into turbulence of its own making. 

The economic damage was significant. Delhi alone, according to the Chamber of Trade and Industry (CTI), suffered nearly Rs 1,000 crore in losses across business events, tourism, hospitality, and exhibitions as passenger movement collapsed. For IndiGo, independent estimates peg the financial impact at roughly Rs1,800 crore, driven by mass refunds, waived fees, and the evaporation of peak-season revenue. Between December 1 and 8, IndiGo cancelled 905 flights—and many more thereafter—crippling mobility during a period when demand is normally at its highest. But summarily IndiGo gains Rs 1400 crore and passengers lose Rs 25 billion. 

India calls air travellers, passengers; IndiGo calls them “customers.” It is a subtle but meaningful shift: a customer can be refunded and dismissed; a passenger is a stakeholder in safety, punctuality, and reliability.

The airline now faces mounting criticism from its own pilots and crew for poor planning and chronic understaffing, which left it wholly unprepared for new duty–rest rules and unleashed a domino effect of overwork, fatigue, and mass cancellations. Pilots say they repeatedly warned the management, but IndiGo continued stretching crews to 55–57 flying hours, worsening mistrust around night-duty pay, scheduling practices, and limits on flying time. 

The cancellations produced widespread chaos. Travellers missed paid hotel bookings, international connections, business meetings, competitions, weddings, and prepaid tours. Beyond ticket refunds, passengers absorbed heavy consequential losses—non-refundable reservations, last-minute rebookings at inflated fares, and complete derailment of personal plans. That the airline continued accepting new bookings while its network was collapsing deepened public fury. 

IndiGo eventually announced automatic full refunds and fee waivers for travel between December 5–15, but the damage was already done. Public anger remained acute. Surveys showed that 87 percent of affected passengers supported a class-action lawsuit under the Consumer Protection Act. The fiasco revived demand for a National Air Passenger Rights Charter with statutory compensation norms and strict enforcement, instead of the toothless advisories currently in place. 

What makes the episode even more troubling is the fact that IndiGo, a carrier that commands nearly 60 percent of India’s domestic aviation market, could have foreseen everything. Nothing about the crisis was unforeseeable or unpreventable. And the uncomfortable truth is that the lapse was not only predictable but—arguably—profitable for the airline. It was a rational, cost-saving choice. Perhaps bolstered by the confidence that its Rs 56 crore electoral contributions would not go unnoticed. 

The Numbers Don’t Lie

IndiGo’s Board of Directors is composed of corporate heavyweights—people who understand regulation, scheduling mathematics, and the direct operational consequences of FDTL changes. These norms were announced 18 months earlier. In that time, IndiGo expanded its operations by adding roughly 200 new daily flights in 2025, taking its total to nearly 2,500. Yet it hired only 418 pilots, when internal assessments—and public statements by pilot unions—suggested the airline needed at least 1,000 additional pilots to comply with the new FDTL roster limits. 

The economics are simple: hiring those 1,000 pilots at about Rs60 lakh per year each would have cost roughly Rs600 crore annually. Over 18 months, IndiGo saved an estimated Rs1,400 crore by not hiring them. This was not an oversight. It was a strategic decision with predictable consequences. 

Chaos as a Revenue Stream

Even as the FDTL deadline approached, IndiGo continued accepting bookings at full capacity. When the collapse occurred, it triggered a second financial pipeline. IndiGo’s opaque delay-management practice involves extending delays in small increments—two hours, then another two—until passengers, exhausted and helpless, cancel their tickets themselves. Only airline-initiated cancellations qualify for full refunds. Passenger-initiated cancellations incur penalties. 

In this crisis, half a million passengers were affected. If even half cancelled on their own at an average fare of Rs10,000, IndiGo would have retained a substantial amount via cancellation charges. 

Passenger in Freefall

On the ground, the situation resembled a humanitarian breakdown. Passengers reported 8–12-hour waits with no staff in sight; seniors, infants, and disabled travellers stranded without assistance; overflowing restrooms; and passengers sleeping on airport floors for lack of alternatives. Baggage became a separate catastrophe. With flights cancelled after prolonged delays, baggage that had been loaded onto aircraft was often misplaced, diverted, or held for days. Many travellers received their luggage late; some still wait without any timeline.For about a lakh families, the cumulative burden—food, taxis, rebookings, hotel losses—could easily cross Rs25,000–Rs50,000, with no legal mechanism for compensation – about Rs 25 billion. 

IndiGo’s “Apology” and Regulatory Retreat

Indigo apology referencing “serious operational failures” avoided acknowledging its structural failure from deliberate cost minimisation at the cost of safety. The DGCA, for its part, had 18 months to monitor staffing, enforce phased compliance, and prevent a meltdown. Instead, it overlooked basic indicators, allowed timeline extensions, and failed to ensure readiness. A regulator operating with 53 percent staff vacancies cannot enforce safety standards effectively. 

Government action—a 10 percent cap on IndiGo’s flights, show-cause notices, and inquiries—barely scratches the surface letting imbalances in passenger safety continue. 

Competition, Accountability, and the Road Ahead

India’s aviation system cannot be held hostage to one airline’s decisions. Structural reforms are essential. The DGCA and Civil Aviation Ministry must be held accountable for lax oversight. Competition laws must be strengthened, the lame-duck Competition Commission empowered, and public-sector aviation revived to ensure real competition. Dynamic fares must be reviewed, with mandatory full refunds for cancellations. 

Nearly 18 crore passengers who fly annually in India cannot remain vulnerable to corporate decisions and regulatory complacency that threaten safety. The IndiGo crisis is not a one-off collapse. It is a warning of what happens when market dominance collides with weak oversight. Unless decisive action is taken now, the next collapse may not merely disrupt schedules—but endanger lives.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)