CCI Orders Investigation Against IndiGo for Alleged Abuse of Dominance

On 4 February 2026, the CCI directed an investigation against InterGlobe Aviation Limited (IndiGo) based on information filed by Mr. Kartikeya Rawal (Informant) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, alleging abuse of dominant position in the market for domestic air passenger transport services in India.[1]

In December 2025, certain return flights operated by IndiGo were cancelled shortly before departure, without alternative arrangements being provided to affected passengers. Subsequently, when rebooking was attempted on the same sectors, seats were found to be available at significantly higher fares than usual. It was alleged that IndiGo’s conduct of cancelling flights and subsequently charging elevated fares amounted to abuse of dominance.  

IndiGo objected to the maintainability of the proceedings, contending that issues relating to civil aviation fall within the exclusive domain of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) under the Bhartiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 and the Aircraft Rules, 1937. It was argued that the specialised regulatory framework impliedly excluded the jurisdiction of the CCI. The DGCA, however, clarified that airfares are not regulated by it and that it does not exercise economic regulatory powers concerning pricing. The CCI observed that while sectoral regulators oversee licensing, safety and operational aspects, competition law issues such as market definition, dominance and abuse fall within its statutory mandate. The CCI held that the existence of a sectoral regulator does not oust its jurisdiction where competition concerns arise.

In assessing dominance, the CCI relied on DGCA data showing that IndiGo accounts for approximately 60-61% of domestic airline capacity measured through Available Seat Kilometres. The airline also carries around half of the passenger traffic on key high-density routes and operates as the sole carrier on more than 330 routes. Combined with its larger fleet and stronger financial performance compared to competitors, the CCI formed a prima facie view that IndiGo enjoys a dominant position both at the national market level and at the level of individual routes.

The CCI observed that passengers whose flights were cancelled were left with limited alternatives and were compelled to purchase replacement tickets at significantly higher prices. Given IndiGo’s scale and network presence, consumers lacked viable options in many instances. Such conduct could amount to the imposition of unfair conditions under Section 4(2)(a)(i). Further, large-scale cancellations may have effectively withheld capacity from the market, potentially restricting the provision of services under Section 4(2)(b)(i). The CCI therefore directed the Director General to conduct a detailed investigation under Section 26(1).

Business Takeaway: The order highlightts that dominant enterprises operating in regulated sectors remain subject to competition law scrutiny. Aviation operators with significant market share must ensure that operational decisions do not translate into exclusionary or exploitative outcomes under competition law.

[1] CCI: In Re: Kartikeya Rawal and InterGlobe Aviation Limited, Case No. 44 of 2025, order dated 4 February 2026.