"Undefined triggers in delegated legislation risk executive overreach." Evaluate this with reference to the "extraordinary situations" clause for airfare intervention.

Delegated legislation lets the executive fill in the details of a law, but it is legitimate only when the parent Act gives clear guiding standards. On 31 October 2026, rules under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 let the Union government issue written fare directions to airlines in "extraordinary situations". The rules leave this term undefined [1]. The statement is largely valid, but the risk can be managed.

How the undefined trigger risks overreach

• Unchecked discretion: The Centre alone decides when a situation becomes "extraordinary" and when it ends. The December 2025 IndiGo fare cap was to stay in force "until the situation fully stabilises" [2]. It had no end date.
• Arbitrariness: A vague trigger allows selective use. A fare cap limits airlines' freedom of trade under Article 19(1)(g), so it must be non-arbitrary (Article 14) and proportionate.
• Regulator sidelined: DGCA only receives tariff filings [1]. A Parliamentary Standing Committee had asked that DGCA be empowered to regulate tariffs [3]. Under the rules, the decision is political, not based on set criteria.
• Thin legislative scrutiny: The rules came after a PIL [1]. Parliament does not debate rules the way it debates a statute.

Why the flexibility is defensible

• Crises vary: COVID-19, the Kumbh Mela, the period after Pahalgam, the Kerala floods and IndiGo's meltdown, with nearly 5,000 cancellations, were very different events [1]. A closed list of triggers could miss the next shock.
• Formalises moral suasion: Earlier, many requests to airlines were informal. Written directions now leave a paper trail and accountability [1].
• Narrow default: Fares stay market-determined. Intervention is the exception [1].
• Built-in checks: Airlines must publish tariffs and file them with DGCA [1]. The ministry monitors fares through real-time data [2]. Courts can still review any direction.

Verdict: The statement holds to a significant extent. The danger comes from having no guardrails, not from flexibility as such.

The clause rightly keeps room to act fast in a crisis, but it fixes no limits on that power. The Ministry should notify illustrative triggers, such as a notified disaster or mass cancellations. Each direction should carry a sunset-and-review clause and cover ancillary charges [1]. Adding flights should come before capping fares. The Committee on Subordinate Legislation should examine the rules. These steps would protect both passengers and the rule of law.