Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Hajj Airfare From Kerala, Asks Ministry To Explain Why Charges From Calicut Are Higher

The Supreme Court today disposed of a petition seeking rationalization of airfare structure across Kerala for the 2025 Hajj, saying it would not be prudent for the Court to express any opinion in that regard.

The Court was of the view that the fixation of airfare was relatable to viability of airlines and involved a commercial policy decision, interfering with which could cause immense harm to travelers, in the event the airlines refused to operate at agreed rates.

"The petitioners...[question] the airfare pricing for Hajj pilgrims departing from Calicut embarkation point. Their precise grievance is that while the airfare of Rs.86000 and Rs.85000 respectively is being charged from the pilgrims who are travelling from Kochi-Jeddah and Kannur-Jeddah respectively, an exorbitant airfare of Rs.1,25,000 (approx.) is being charged from those travelling from Calicut-Jeddah. It is pointed out that in terms of distance, Kochi-Jeddah is 4,170 kms whereas Calicut-Jeddah is 4086 kms. It is for these reasons that the petitioners allege arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution in the matter of airfare pricing.

There is no dispute that the airfare has been fixed through the intervention of the Ministry of Minority Affairs, Government of India...the fixation of airfare is relatable to viability of airlines...it being part of a commercial policy decision, it will not be prudent for this Court to express any opinion or substitute such policy decision. In fact, any intervention by this Court will be counter-productive for the Hajj pilgrims, as in the event of recusal by any airline to fly on the agreed rates, it is likely to cause irreversible hardship to them", noted a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh.

Insofar as the petitioners had made a detailed representation seeking intervention of the Government of India, but no response was received, the Court impressed upon Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj (for respondents) to instruct the competent authority to examine the representation.

"If it is found that the fare therein cannot be acceded to, let an order with brief reasons be uploaded on the website of the Ministry to enable the prospective visitors to know the reasons as to why airfare on Calicut-Jeddah route is higher as compared to other routes in the state of Kerala. We will appreciate if an appropriate order to this effect is passed within one week", the Court further ordered.

Briefly put, the petitioners (Hajj pilgrims) had sought intervention of the Court alleging that excess airfare was being charged from Hajj pilgrims travelling from Calicut to Jeddah (as compared to other locations in Kerala).

The reliefs sought included:

(i) a direction to the Respondents to rationalize and rectify the airfare structure for Haj 2025 to ensure uniformity and fairness among all embarkation points in Kerala;

(ii) a 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, and/or

(iii) a direction to the Respondents to refund/reimburse the excess airfare charged to the affected pilgrims from Calicut International Airport.

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat contended that about 5500 other pilgrims were similarly situated. They have to board for the pilgrimage (to Jeddah) from Calicut, where the airfare is Rs.1,25,000, even though the airfare from two other points in Kerala, ie Kochi and Kannur is Rs.87,000 and 85,000 respectively.

Hearing the submissions, Justice Kant remarked, "Probably it happens only because of the kind of expenditure an airline incurs on a particular airport...".

Farasat however emphasized that the price differential was approx. Rs.40,000 across different locations within the state and said that the Hajj pilgirms are poor persons; as such, the price differential matters to them. He argued that, on the face of it, the differential is arbitrary.

The senior counsel further mentioned that the Hajj pilgrimage is preceded by issuance of a tender by the Ministry of Minority Affairs. However, "only one airline [has] the tender and enjoys monopoly...Air India gives it...so whatever it gives, they take it".

At this point, Justice Kant probed as to what would happen if the airline refuses to operate saying it's not viable for it. "The government is controlling it, it's not controlled by market forces", responded Farasat. Differing, Justice Kant said that the government is not controlling the airline in a regulatory manner.

When the judge suggested that the petitioners could approach the Kerala High Court, Farasat informed that certain pilgrims had approached the High Court last year for a similar issue and obtained an order which according to him was not correct. The High Court order would bind us and require us to approach the Supreme Court, Farasat stressed, underlining that the issue was time sensitive.

"These are not the matters where we should [...]...instead of relief, it can cause very immense hardship to the travelers...they (airlines) will say we are not going to fly...", responded Justice Kant.

When the bench was disinclined to entertain the prayers on the basis that a policy decision was involved, Farasat informed that 2500 pilgrims had made a representation to the Ministry on 30 January, 2025. He beseeched the Court to direct time-bound decision on the representation, so that the petitioners know what the reasons are for the price differential.

Accordingly, Justice Kant told ASG Nataraj, "you can put on the website an order explaining that because of these reasons...so that they know it very well...".

Case Title: ABDUSSALAM AND ORS. Versus THE HAJJ COMMITTEE OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 190/2025