When large parts of IndiGo’s network unravelled in the first week of December 2025, leaving thousands of passengers stranded and airfares soaring overnight, the episode was widely seen as another operational breakdown in a stretched aviation system.
Now, the Competition Commission of India has decided that the disruption warrants closer scrutiny.
In an order passed in Case No. 44 of 2025, the CCI has directed an investigation into whether India’s largest airline abused its dominant position by cancelling flights, restricting capacity and charging higher fares in the aftermath.
The order follows a complaint by Kartikeya Rawal, a lawyer who is currently Director (Legal) at food delivery platform Swiggy, but rests on the wider market impact of the December cancellations.
What the Informant Alleged
Rawal had booked a return journey on the Delhi–Goa–Bengaluru sector for December 5, 2025, paying ₹7,173. A few hours before departure, IndiGo cancelled his flights. He said no suitable alternatives were offered.
When he tried to rebook, he found that fares on the same routes had jumped sharply. Eventually, he booked another IndiGo flight two days later, paying nearly ₹17,000.
In his complaint, Rawal argued that the airline’s conduct went beyond inconvenience. He alleged that IndiGo had cancelled flights in bulk, creating artificial scarcity in the market. With limited alternatives available, passengers were forced to accept much higher prices.
According to him, this amounted to abuse of dominance under the Competition Act, particularly through unfair pricing and restriction of services.
IndiGo’s Defence
IndiGo challenged both the maintainability of the case and the CCI’s jurisdiction.
It argued that the aviation sector is governed by a specialised regulatory framework under the Bhartiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 and the Aircraft Rules, 1937. Issues relating to operations and fares, it said, fall within the domain of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation.
The airline contended that the DGCA already monitors tariffs and market behaviour and that competition authorities should not intervene in matters covered by sectoral regulation.
On the merits, IndiGo maintained that the December disruptions were caused by operational constraints, including aircraft availability and supply chain issues. The cancellations, it said, were not designed to manipulate prices or restrict supply.
The CCI’s View on Jurisdiction
The Commission rejected IndiGo’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bharti Airtel v. CCI, it held that sector-specific regulation does not bar the application of competition law. While the DGCA oversees safety and operational compliance, it does not conduct economic or market power assessments.
The CCI also noted that Rule 135 of the Aircraft Rules, which deals with fare disclosure, is supervisory in nature and does not address abuse of dominance.
In addition, the DGCA informed the Commission that it does not possess powers to analyse competition-related issues. On this basis, the CCI concluded that it was competent to examine the complaint.
Finding Dominance
The Commission defined the relevant market as domestic air passenger transport services in India.
Within this market, it found that IndiGo holds a dominant position. It noted that the airline had a market share of around 60 to 63 per cent in FY24 and FY25, in terms of both passengers carried and available seat kilometres. Its fleet of more than 400 aircraft is substantially larger than that of its competitors. It also operates exclusively on hundreds of routes.
The CCI further pointed to IndiGo’s financial strength and sustained profitability in a sector where many players have struggled. Taken together, these factors, the Commission said, indicate substantial market power.
Assessment of the Conduct
On the issue of abuse, the CCI examined data relating to the December 2025 disruption.
It observed that more than 2,500 flights were cancelled and over 1,800 delayed in a short span, affecting over three lakh passengers. The scale of the disruption, it said, suggested a system-wide impact rather than isolated incidents.
According to the Commission, the mass cancellations resulted in withdrawal of capacity from the market at a time of high demand. Given IndiGo’s dominant position, this limited the availability of alternatives for passengers.
The CCI noted that consumers were effectively “locked in” and compelled to book expensive tickets due to the lack of viable substitutes.
On a prima facie basis, it found that the conduct appeared to fall within Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act, relating to unfair prices, and Section 4(2)(b)(i), relating to restriction of services.
However, it clarified that these findings are preliminary and subject to investigation.
What Happens Next
Based on its initial assessment, the CCI has ordered an investigation under Section 26(1) of the Act.
The Director General has been directed to examine the matter and submit a report within 90 days. The investigation will focus on the reasons for the cancellations, capacity management, pricing patterns and internal decision-making.
The Commission has emphasised that the order does not amount to a final finding of guilt. IndiGo will have the opportunity to respond to the investigation report before any further action is taken.
Depending on the outcome, the case could either be closed or proceed to detailed hearings, potentially leading to penalties or behavioural directions.
For now, the matter moves from preliminary scrutiny to formal investigation, placing the December 2025 disruption under regulatory examination.>
