Competition Commission of India Dismisses Allegations of Unfair Airline Cancellation Charges; Reiterates No Concept of Collective Dominance

On 11 March 2026, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) closed allegations of anti-competitive conduct and abuse of dominance against IndiGo and Air India concerning allegedly excessive cancellation charges on airline tickets.[1]    

The informant alleged that IndiGo and Air India, with approximately 65% and 27% market shares respectively, collectively controlled over 90% of the domestic aviation market and imposed excessive and unfair cancellation charges. It was further alleged that both airlines acted in concert to maintain similar pricing practices, amounting to cartelisation under Section 3(3), and abused their dominance under Section 4 by imposing unfair conditions. The informant also relied on Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA), arguing that such charges bore no reasonable nexus to any actual loss suffered by airlines.  

On cartelisation, the CCI held that price parallelism alone is insufficient to establish an agreement. In the absence of any evidence of a meeting of minds, no contravention was found.

With respect to abuse of dominance, the CCI emphasised that the concept of collective dominance falls outside the scope of the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act), relying on its earlier decision in Airen Metals Private Limited v. Hindalco Industries Limited.[2] Even otherwise, the CCI found no prima facie abuse, noting that airlines offer multiple fare categories with varying refund conditions, and that cancellation terms are transparently disclosed and uniformly applied.

The CCI further clarified that issues relating to the reasonableness of contractual terms, including cancellation charges under the ICA, fall outside its jurisdiction. Mere dissatisfaction with contractual conditions does not, in itself, amount to a competition law violation. Accordingly, the matter was closed under Section 26(2).

Business Takeaway:

The decision reinforces that parallel conduct, absent evidence of coordination, does not establish cartelisation. It also reiterates that the Competition Act does not recognise collective dominance, limiting abuse of dominance analysis to individual enterprises. Transparent and uniformly applied pricing or contractual terms are unlikely to attract scrutiny unless they result in demonstrable exclusionary or exploitative effects.

[1] CCI: In Re: Kannadiputhur Sundararaman Suresh and Interglobe Aviation Limited and Anr., Case No. 42 of 2025, order dated 11 March 2026.

[2] CCI: In Re: Airen Metals Private Limited & Anr. and Hindalco Industries Limited & Anr., Case No. 31 of 2024, order dated 30 May 2025.