Aviation in Crisis: Governance in Denial | IndiGo Disruption Exposes Regulatory Gaps

The disruption in IndiGo’s operations has once again exposed the fragility of India’s aviation sector — a sector that has grown rapidly in scale but not in regulatory maturity. IndiGo’s Crisis Management Group may be meeting daily, and the civil aviation minister may have expressed regret in Parliament, but the government’s response — centred on refunds, rescheduling, and assurances — raises a larger question: is this the extent of the state’s responsibility in a sector that carried "over 15 crore domestic passengers in 2024", making India the "third-largest aviation market in the world"? The scale of the disruption demands more than administrative firefighting.

The data tells a stark story. According to DGCA figures, "flight cancellations in India rose by nearly 38% between 2022 and 2024", driven by staffing shortages, maintenance delays, and operational lapses. Passenger complaints increased by "over 52%" in the same period, with refund delays and last-minute cancellations topping the list. Airfares have also surged: a 500-kilometre domestic flight that cost around "₹7,000–₹7,500 in 2019" now routinely crosses "₹12,000–₹15,000" during peak periods — a near doubling in five years. The government has repeatedly argued that fares are market-driven, but the absence of fare bands or regulatory oversight has allowed airlines to pass operational inefficiencies directly onto passengers.

IndiGo’s crisis is not an isolated event. India has seen "seven major airline collapses in the last 15 years" — Kingfisher (2012), Jet Airways (2019), Air Costa (2017), Air Pegasus (2016), Paramount (2010), Go First (2023), and MDLR (2009). Each collapse left lakhs of passengers stranded and thousands of employees unpaid. Yet, despite this pattern, India still lacks a legally enforceable passenger rights charter. The DGCA’s Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) remain guidelines, not binding law. Airlines routinely delay refunds beyond the mandated seven days, and penalties for non-compliance are negligible. In 2023–24 alone, DGCA imposed fines totalling "₹3.5 crore" — a fraction of the revenue airlines generate in a single day.

Comparisons with global standards are instructive. The European Union’s EC 261 regulation mandates compensation of "€250–€600" for cancellations and long delays, irrespective of ticket price. The United States Department of Transportation requires airlines to refund passengers within "seven business days" for credit card purchases and imposes heavy penalties for non-compliance. Japan’s aviation reforms after the JAL Flight 123 disaster created one of the world’s strictest safety and accountability frameworks. In each case, the state acted decisively to protect passengers and enforce corporate responsibility. India, by contrast, appears to be witnessing a first: a nationwide aviation disruption with no structural action, no regulatory tightening, and no clear accountability.

The government’s response raises questions about the political culture surrounding such crises. The ruling party once promised a governance model rooted in efficiency, transparency, and zero tolerance for mismanagement. Yet the gap between promise and performance has widened. The rhetoric of reform has not translated into the reality of regulation. The leadership that once criticised previous governments for regulatory weakness now appears reluctant to confront powerful corporate interests or enforce strict accountability. The transformation from critic to practitioner is visible in the aviation sector’s drift toward deregulation without safeguards.

The economic implications are significant. Aviation contributes "over $30 billion" to India’s GDP and supports "nearly 4 million jobs" directly and indirectly. Disruptions of the scale witnessed in December 2025 have cascading effects: missed business opportunities, delayed cargo shipments, tourism losses, and reduced consumer confidence. According to industry estimates, every day of large-scale disruption costs the economy "₹150–₹200 crore". Yet the government’s response remains limited to expressions of regret and assurances of refunds — measures that do not address the structural vulnerabilities of the sector.

The question of individual accountability also looms large. If a single corporate decision or operational failure can trigger a nationwide aviation crisis, should the consequences not be proportionate? Many countries bar individuals from running businesses after repeated failures. Some impose criminal liability for systemic negligence. India, however, continues to rely on voluntary compliance and post-facto apologies. The result is predictable: crises recur, passengers suffer, and the cycle continues. The absence of a legally enforceable passenger rights charter is glaring. The absence of penalties for operational negligence is alarming. And the absence of a long-term aviation policy that prioritises consumer protection over corporate convenience is indefensible.

The IndiGo crisis also exposes a contradiction in the government’s own narrative. The BJP once positioned itself as a party that would bring discipline, accountability, and structural reform to sectors plagued by inefficiency. Yet today, the government’s response to a nationwide aviation disruption is limited to expressions of regret and assurances of refunds. The shift from reformist rhetoric to administrative minimalism is difficult to ignore. The state’s responsibility cannot end at rescheduling flights. It must extend to ensuring that such disruptions do not occur in the first place.

India needs a comprehensive aviation policy that addresses the structural vulnerabilities of the sector. It needs a regulatory framework that ensures airlines cannot operate without adequate staffing, maintenance, and contingency planning. It needs a passenger rights charter with legal enforceability. And it needs a government willing to intervene decisively when corporate negligence affects national infrastructure. The IndiGo crisis is not an isolated event; it is a symptom of a larger governance failure. If the government continues to treat aviation disruptions as temporary inconveniences rather than systemic breakdowns, the consequences will only grow more severe.

Refunds and rescheduling may offer temporary relief, but they do not constitute reform. They do not address the rising cost of air travel, the fragility of airline operations, or the absence of accountability. They do not protect passengers from future crises. And they do not reflect the constitutional promise of justice, fairness, and security. India cannot afford a future where passengers remain hostages to corporate mismanagement and governmental inaction. The time for decisive reform is now — not after the next crisis, not after the next apology, and certainly not after the next round of refunds.