The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition challenging a recent circular by the Haj Committee of India that mandates an additional airfare payment of Rs 10,000 from pilgrims. In an order dated May 7, the court ruled that the petitioner lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to contest the hike, as he had neither registered for the pilgrimage nor deposited any funds.
The Legal Issue and Background
The legal dispute centered around an April 28, 2026, circular issued by the Haj Committee of India. The directive imposed a one-time airfare revision, requiring pilgrims to pay an additional Rs 10,000 regardless of their departure city. Authorities attributed this hike to pressing requests from airlines grappling with soaring Aviation Turbine Fuel prices, a direct consequence of the ongoing conflict in West Asia.
Arguments by the Petitioner
Younus Khan, a resident of Kolar district, approached the High Court seeking relief against the passenger flight charge increase. Representing Khan, Advocate Suhail Dil Nawaz argued that authorities had already collected Rs 2,77,300 from the Haj pilgrims. He contended that because the flight tickets had been booked well in advance, the committee could not legally demand additional payment solely based on subsequent fuel price fluctuations in the Middle East.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Presiding over the matter, Justice S Vishwajith Shetty reviewed the records and identified a critical procedural flaw: Khan himself was not a registered pilgrim for the upcoming journey.
The court noted that the financial demand outlined in the circular applied strictly to actual participants. “The demand for payment of differential amount of Rs.10,000, vide circular dated 28.04.2026, is only from the pilgrims of Haj 2026 who have registered their names with the Haj Committee of India and have already paid/deposited the amount,” Justice Shetty observed.
Concluding that Khan was not personally affected by the directive, the court ruled to dismiss the plea. “Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any grievance as against the said circular, and therefore, he has no locus standi to question the same,” the bench stated, officially dismissing the petition as “not maintainable.”
Context and Political Reactions
Defending the fare revision, the Union Ministry for Minority Affairs stated that the hike was an unavoidable outcome of a “global emergency beyond any government’s control.” The Ministry revealed that airlines had initially demanded an extra $300 to $400 per pilgrim due to the Middle East crisis. Following extensive negotiations, the Ministry approved a scaled-down increase of just $100 per pilgrim, noting that this saved travelers a significant sum compared to the airlines’ original demands.
However, the decision has drawn sharp criticism from political leaders. Congress Minority Affairs Department chairman Imran Pratapgarhi condemned the last-minute collection as “utter injustice.” Echoing this sentiment, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi labeled the extra financial burden as “exploitation” and demanded an immediate withdrawal of the circular.
