CCI probes IndiGo for dominance abuse, fare hikes after December flight cancellations
The Hindu
CCI investigates IndiGo for potential fare hikes and abuse of dominance following December flight cancellations affecting thousands of passengers.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has ordered a probe into IndiGo for allegedly using its strong market position to increase airfares after cancelling flights across its network in December.
“It is observed that passengers who had booked tickets were left with no real choice but to accept last-minute cancellations. Further, passengers were left to seek alternatives, on their own, at significantly higher prices,” notes the CCI in its order dated February 4.
Between December 3 and December 10, IndiGo cancelled nearly 4,200 flights. In November, it had already cancelled about 900 flights. In total, around 5.9 lakh passengers were affected by these cancellations up to December 9.
The CCI adds that “given IndiGo’s dominant position, consumers were effectively locked in and lacked viable alternatives”. Further, “by cancelling thousands of flights constituting a significant portion of the scheduled capacity, IndiGo effectively withheld its service from the market, creating an artificial scarcity, limiting consumer access to air travel during peak demand.”
These factors make the airline violative of two provisions of the Competition Commission Act 2002 that prohibit abuse of market dominance, the CCI order states.
These provisions include abuse of dominant position that directly or indirectly imposes unfair or discriminatory condition and price in purchase or sale (including predatory price) of goods or services.

The U.S. has launched two investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 against India and other economies to examine practices that may be ‘unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce’. One probe examines whether countries, including India, are using excess manufacturing capacity to export to the U.S. in a manner that hurts American businesses, while another looks at whether countries have taken ‘sufficient steps’ to prohibit imports of goods produced with forced labour.












