‘DON’T TRAVEL BY AIR’: INSENSITIVE REMARKS BY A SUPREME COURT JUDGE EXPOSE THE GROWING DISTANCE BETWEEN INDIA’S JUDICIAL ELITE AND ORDINARY TAXPAYERS

There is something profoundly disturbing about the casual manner in which the grievances of ordinary citizens can sometimes be brushed aside in the highest court of the country.

On November 2, 2026, a remark attributed to Supreme Court Justice Vikram Nath during proceedings concerning exorbitant airline ticket prices raised an uncomfortable question about the relationship between India’s constitutional institutions and the ordinary people whose taxes sustain them.

When counsel sought an urgent hearing of an application alleging that domestic airfares had increased dramatically ahead of the festive season, the reported response from Justice Vikram Nath was:

“Don’t travel by air. Next case.”

Perhaps it was intended as a casual courtroom observation. Perhaps it was an expression of impatience with an application seeking urgent listing. Perhaps it was simply a short exchange during a busy judicial day.

But judicial remarks do not exist in a vacuum. Particularly when they come from the Supreme Court, they carry an institutional weight that ordinary conversational remarks do not.

And this particular remark deserves serious criticism.

The issue was not whether every Indian has an absolute right to travel by aeroplane. Nor was the Court being asked to purchase airline tickets for citizens. The issue was whether exceptionally steep and unpredictable airfare increases, particularly during periods of public demand, deserve regulatory scrutiny and timely judicial consideration.

Instead of engaging with the urgency of the grievance, the reported response reduced the solution to an extraordinary proposition: if air travel becomes unaffordable, simply stop flying.

Is that really the level of sensitivity that citizens should expect from the highest constitutional court of the country?

THE JUDICIARY MUST UNDERSTAND THAT NOT EVERY INDIAN HAS THE PRIVILEGES ENJOYED BY THOSE SITTING IN COURTROOMS

For a Supreme Court judge, official transportation is an entitlement. An official residence is an entitlement. Several institutional facilities are available because the Constitution and Parliament recognise the importance of protecting judicial independence.

But for an ordinary Indian taxpayer, even a domestic flight can represent months of savings.

A middle-class family saving money for years to visit relatives, a businessman travelling to secure an important transaction, a student travelling for an examination, a patient seeking specialised medical treatment, or a person rushing to attend a family emergency cannot necessarily respond to a sudden airfare increase by casually changing plans.

For many people, air travel is not an extravagant lifestyle statement. It is a practical necessity arising from distance, time constraints, professional commitments and personal emergencies.

The Supreme Court’s own proceedings had previously recognised that unpredictable airfare fluctuations during festivals and periods of high demand required attention.

The problem, therefore, was not merely the refusal to grant urgent listing. Courts routinely decide which applications deserve immediate consideration. Judicial discretion is necessary.

The problem was the apparent trivialisation of the grievance.

A citizen approaching the Supreme Court is not necessarily asking for sympathy. He is invoking a constitutional institution to examine whether governmental inaction, regulatory deficiencies or private commercial practices are producing an unreasonable public burden.

One may ultimately agree or disagree with the petitioner’s arguments. But dismissing the underlying concern with a casual suggestion to stop flying creates an unfortunate impression that the economic difficulties of ordinary citizens are too insignificant to deserve serious consideration.

Judicial wisdom is not measured by how quickly a court can move to the next case. It is also measured by whether those who approach it feel that their grievances have been heard with dignity.

THE COMFORTABLE WORLD OF JUDICIAL PRIVILEGES: WHO PAYS FOR IT?

Perhaps this is the appropriate moment to examine the facilities available to Supreme Court judges.

These facilities are established under law. There is no suggestion that judges are doing anything improper by receiving benefits to which they are legally entitled.

Judicial independence requires institutional protection, adequate remuneration and conditions that allow judges to discharge their responsibilities without financial or external pressure.

However, the existence of legitimate entitlements does not place their beneficiaries beyond public scrutiny.

In a democracy, public expenditure must always remain open to questions of proportionality, accountability and institutional responsibility.

The Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958, and the Supreme Court Judges Rules, 1959, provide a striking picture of the facilities available to the country’s highest judicial officers.

Consider the following.

1. Rent-free official residences and the comfort of furnished government accommodation

Under Section 23 of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958, every Supreme Court judge is entitled to the use of an official residence without payment of rent.

This is not merely a matter of receiving a house and paying for its ordinary upkeep personally.

Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Judges Rules, 1959, provides for a furnished residence without rent and stipulates that no personal charge shall fall on the judge for its maintenance.

The definition of residence also includes associated staff quarters, other adjoining buildings and the garden.

The maintenance provision includes local rates and taxes, electricity and water.

In other words, the arrangement provides a considerable degree of residential comfort through publicly funded facilities.

For an ordinary taxpayer, rent, electricity bills, water bills, household maintenance and furnishing costs are substantial recurring expenses.

For a Supreme Court judge, the legal framework provides an institutional arrangement designed to remove much of that financial burden.

There is nothing inherently wrong with providing judges suitable residences. The question is whether those enjoying such institutional protection also appreciate the economic circumstances of the people who cannot afford even an ordinary domestic flight during the festive season.

2. Furnishing allowance and electrical appliances worth lakhs

The facilities do not stop at providing a residence.

Rule 4B of the Supreme Court Judges Rules, 1959, provides for free furnishings, including electrical appliances, in official residences.

Under the 2018 amendment:

• The furnishing ceiling for the Chief Justice of India is ₹10 lakh.
• The furnishing ceiling for other Supreme Court judges is ₹8 lakh.

These are specified limits on the value of free furnishings, including electrical appliances, rather than monthly allowances.

The distinction matters, but so does the underlying reality.

A judge’s official accommodation comes with a legally provided furnishing facility worth several lakhs of rupees.

An ordinary salaried Indian, meanwhile, may spend years purchasing furniture and household appliances through personal savings, consumer loans and monthly instalments.

The judiciary is entitled to institutional facilities. But it should never become so insulated from ordinary financial realities that the economic distress of citizens begins to sound like an inconvenience.

3. Official staff car and substantial free fuel entitlement

Section 23A of the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958, provides every Supreme Court judge with an entitlement to a staff car and fuel of up to 200 litres per month, or actual monthly consumption, whichever is less.

This is a statutory conveyance facility.

The public is entitled to ask questions about the costs of official vehicles, procurement, maintenance, fuel and the overall expenditure associated with such facilities.

There are claims circulating in public discussions about luxury imported vehicle models such as Mercedes-Benz and BMW being allocated to senior judicial officers. However, the statutory provision itself does not prescribe any particular manufacturer or model, and those specific allocations should not be represented as established facts without official vehicle-allocation or procurement records.

But the larger point remains.

An ordinary Indian buying a car must arrange the down payment, repay a loan, purchase insurance, pay for servicing, purchase fuel and bear the costs of ownership.

A Supreme Court judge has a statutory entitlement to an official staff car and a substantial fuel facility.

The public is not begrudging judges their transportation. It is asking them to remember the distance between the facilities available to constitutional office-holders and the financial limitations faced by ordinary citizens.

4. Monthly sumptuary allowance: ₹34,000 for a Supreme Court judge

Section 23B of the Act provides a monthly sumptuary allowance of:

• ₹45,000 for the Chief Justice of India.
• ₹34,000 for each other Supreme Court judge.

This is over and above the regular monthly salary.

The sumptuary allowance is a legally prescribed service entitlement. It should not be confused with an ordinary consumer benefit or assumed to be entirely discretionary personal income.

Nevertheless, it demonstrates the level of institutional financial support attached to the highest judicial offices.

For a vast section of India’s population, ₹34,000 is an entire month’s salary.

For some households, it represents the combined earnings of several family members.

The contrast is not an argument against paying judges properly. It is an argument against forgetting the citizens whose economic realities are supposed to inform the administration of justice.

5. Exemption from National Highway toll charges

This is another facility that deserves public attention.

Under Rule 11 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, exemption from National Highway user fees extends to a mechanical vehicle transporting and accompanying a Supreme Court judge.

The exemption is expressly provided in the rules.

It is important to clarify that this is not a blanket exemption for every private vehicle owned by a judge or every vehicle used by members of the judge’s family independently. The rule concerns vehicles transporting and accompanying the specified constitutional functionary.

Nevertheless, the entitlement is real.

An ordinary citizen travelling on a National Highway pays toll charges. A vehicle transporting and accompanying a Supreme Court judge falls within a specifically exempted category.

Once again, the question is not whether such exemptions should necessarily be abolished. The question is whether those who enjoy these facilities can remain sufficiently connected to the everyday financial pressures of the people who pay for the infrastructure and institutions of the country.

THE TAXPAYER IS NOT A SUBJECT OF A CONSTITUTIONAL KINGDOM

There appears to be an uncomfortable institutional problem in India: the distance between public office and public life can become so substantial that those occupying powerful positions sometimes appear disconnected from the realities of ordinary citizens.

Judges are constitutional functionaries, not monarchs.

The Supreme Court is a constitutional court, not a royal court.

The judge’s office is an office of public responsibility, not a licence to display impatience towards citizens who seek constitutional remedies.

A judge may disagree with a petitioner. A judge may reject an argument. A judge may decline urgent listing. A judge may even ask uncomfortable questions.

But there is a fundamental difference between judicial firmness and judicial insensitivity.

A courtroom is not a place where a citizen should be made to feel that his financial difficulties are amusing, irrelevant or unworthy of serious consideration.

The Constitution does not create one standard of dignity for constitutional office-holders and another for ordinary citizens.

The dignity of judicial office comes with an equally serious responsibility to respect the dignity of those appearing before it.

And taxpayers have every right to expect that their grievances will be treated with seriousness rather than brushed aside through remarks that can reasonably be perceived as dismissive.

5.8 CRORE PENDING CASES: THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM CANNOT AFFORD TO BECOME COMPLACENT

Now comes an even more uncomfortable question.

What is happening to India’s justice delivery system?

On October 14, 2026, the Ministry of Law and Justice publicly stated that more than 5.8 crore cases were pending across Indian courts.

This is not a figure produced by a political opponent, a social media activist or a disgruntled litigant. It is a figure acknowledged by the Union Government itself.

The figures are staggering.

As per the National Judicial Data Grid figures placed before Parliament for July 30, 2026:

• District and subordinate courts had 4,99,11,920 pending cases.
• High Courts had 64,66,970 pending cases.
• The Supreme Court had 95,954 pending cases.

The Supreme Court alone had more than 95,000 matters pending, including 9,425 cases that had remained pending for more than ten years.

The judiciary is expected to be the ultimate protector of rights, the guarantor of constitutional liberties and the final destination for citizens who cannot obtain justice elsewhere.

Yet millions of litigants wait for years.

A person fighting a property dispute may spend a substantial part of his life waiting for a decision.

A business facing an unlawful contractual claim may suffer financial damage while proceedings continue.

A family awaiting justice in a criminal matter may experience years of uncertainty.

A homebuyer seeking a refund may find that the litigation itself becomes another financial burden.

A person seeking enforcement of an order may discover that obtaining a judgment and obtaining its actual implementation are two entirely different battles.

There are several reasons for judicial pendency, including vacancies, inadequate infrastructure, investigation delays, procedural complexity, adjournments and the conduct of stakeholders.

It would be unfair to attribute all 5.8 crore pending matters to individual judges or to the Supreme Court alone.

But that is precisely why institutional urgency is necessary.

When millions of citizens are waiting for justice, every component of the judicial system must demonstrate an extraordinary commitment to efficiency, accountability and sensitivity.

The judiciary cannot lecture citizens about patience indefinitely while the system struggles to deliver timely justice.

Nor should the public be expected to applaud every institutional privilege without asking whether the institution is delivering the level of public service that justifies the expenditure.

The real privilege of a judge should be the opportunity to deliver justice, not merely the comfort of occupying a prestigious constitutional office.

6. JUDICIAL PRIVILEGES MUST COME WITH A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD OF PUBLIC SENSITIVITY

There is a reason why judges enjoy special service conditions.

They are expected to remain independent, impartial, free from improper influence and capable of deciding cases without fear or favour.

Their remuneration and facilities are not gifts from individual citizens. They are institutional safeguards.

But judicial independence should never be confused with institutional insulation.

Independence means freedom from improper pressure. It does not mean freedom from criticism.

It does not mean freedom from public scrutiny.

It does not mean that the economic difficulties of ordinary citizens can be brushed aside merely because a court has the discretion to decline an application.

Indeed, the higher the constitutional office, the higher the expectation of restraint.

The remarks of a judge are often remembered long after a particular hearing is over. They influence public confidence, perceptions of institutional fairness and the relationship between the judiciary and society.

A judge does not need to agree with every citizen. But citizens should not have to wonder whether the judiciary considers their difficulties worthy of attention.

The public does not expect judges to sympathise with every argument. It expects them to appreciate that behind every petition is a person, a family, a business or an institution dealing with a real-world problem.

That is not an unreasonable expectation.

7. IF AIR TRAVEL IS OPTIONAL, IS AFFORDABLE ACCESS TO JUSTICE OPTIONAL TOO?

The apparent logic behind the remark is straightforward: nobody is legally compelled to travel by air, so a person dissatisfied with ticket prices can simply choose not to fly.

But the same simplistic argument can be applied to almost every public inconvenience.

If litigation is expensive, should citizens simply avoid approaching courts?

If legal proceedings take twenty years, should litigants simply abandon their claims?

If a patient cannot afford a private hospital, should the patient simply avoid treatment?

If a consumer faces an unfair commercial practice, should the consumer simply stop purchasing the product?

The purpose of courts is not to tell citizens to withdraw from situations in which they believe their rights are being affected. Their purpose is to examine grievances within the limits of the law and provide appropriate remedies where legally justified.

Of course, not every economic hardship constitutes a constitutional violation.

Not every airline fare can be capped merely because a passenger finds it expensive.

Not every commercial pricing decision is arbitrary.

The merits of the petition must be assessed on the evidence, applicable laws, regulatory framework and constitutional principles.

But that is precisely what judicial examination is for.

When the petitioner invokes Article 14 and alleges that unpredictable dynamic pricing is producing arbitrary and exceptionally steep fare increases, the proper institutional response is to determine whether the grievance warrants judicial attention, not to trivialise the concern.

An observation that air travel is not mandatory does not, by itself, resolve the petitioner’s contention that certain pricing practices may require regulatory scrutiny.

8. THE IRONY: THE COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY RECOGNISED THE AIRFARE PROBLEM

There is an additional dimension to this episode.

The underlying public interest litigation was not an entirely new or unknown matter suddenly brought before the Supreme Court on November 2.

The proceedings had been pending since 2025.

In January 2026, the Supreme Court had expressed concern about steep increases in airfares during festivals and high-demand periods.

The Court had also sought governmental intervention and regulatory action.

The Centre subsequently notified the Bharatiya Vayuyan Niyam, 2026, on November 1, with the new rules scheduled to take effect from January 1, 2027.

These rules introduce provisions concerning airline tariff determination, submission of tariff information to the DGCA and governmental intervention in extraordinary circumstances in the public interest.

Against this background, the petitioner’s request for interim relief was directed towards a problem that the Court itself had previously recognised as deserving attention.

The immediate application sought action during the Diwali and year-end festive periods.

The refusal of urgent listing meant that the application would not receive the requested immediate consideration. The underlying petition, however, remained pending, with November 16 as its next scheduled hearing.

This distinction is important.

The Supreme Court did not dismiss the entire public interest litigation. Nor did it conclusively decide that the allegations concerning airfare pricing were without merit.

Nevertheless, when the Court has previously recognised an issue as worthy of scrutiny, citizens can reasonably expect consistency of institutional seriousness.

A regulatory framework taking effect in January 2027 does not automatically answer every question about airfare spikes in November 2026.

The public is entitled to ask whether the gap between regulatory announcement and actual implementation leaves passengers without meaningful protection during the intervening period.

That was a legitimate subject for examination.

9. JUDGES CANNOT EXPECT UNQUESTIONING RESPECT WHILE PUBLICLY DISMISSING PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

Respect for the judiciary is essential to a constitutional democracy.

But respect is not the same as unquestioning obedience.

Citizens must be allowed to criticise judicial observations, courtroom conduct, administrative functioning and institutional privileges through responsible public discussion.

The judiciary cannot simultaneously expect the highest level of respect from society and assume that every public criticism of a judicial remark amounts to an attack on judicial independence.

There is no contradiction between respecting the Supreme Court as an institution and criticising a particular observation made by a judge.

There is also no contradiction between defending judicial independence and demanding greater empathy from those who occupy judicial office.

In fact, constructive criticism strengthens public institutions by reminding them that their legitimacy ultimately rests on public trust.

Justice Vikram Nath’s reported remark may have been brief. But its implications for public perception deserve more than a passing dismissal.

The issue is not the personality of one judge. It is the larger judicial culture in which courtroom language can sometimes appear detached from the lived realities of those who approach the courts.

For a person struggling with an unaffordable ticket, “Don’t travel by air” might sound like a wealthy person’s solution to an ordinary person’s problem.

For a taxpayer paying for public infrastructure, judicial administration and institutional facilities, it raises an uncomfortable question: do those who receive the greatest institutional protections fully appreciate the vulnerabilities of those who finance the system?

10. WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE ORDINARY TAXPAYER?

The Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution. Its judges enjoy substantial constitutional protection and independence.

But there is one important distinction that must never be forgotten.

The judiciary exists to serve the constitutional order and the people living under it. The people do not exist to serve the comfort of the judiciary.

The taxpayer is not an outsider to the system.

The taxpayer is the individual funding the roads, infrastructure, government institutions, court buildings, public administration and the wider machinery through which the rule of law operates.

The taxpayer is also the litigant whose property dispute may remain unresolved for years.

The taxpayer is the consumer who may face unfair commercial practices.

The taxpayer is the family paying for medical treatment, education and travel.

The taxpayer is the ordinary person who may have no influential connections, no institutional access and no alternative but to approach the courts.

Such a citizen deserves respect.

If a judge can enjoy a rent-free furnished residence, institutional conveyance, substantial fuel entitlement, furnishing facilities, sumptuary allowance and statutory toll exemptions, there should be no difficulty in expecting that judge to demonstrate an appropriate degree of sensitivity towards citizens facing economic hardship.

These benefits are justified by the importance of judicial independence.

But the dignity of a judicial office is not measured by the size of its bungalow, the price of its vehicle, the amount of its furnishing allowance or the number of facilities attached to it.

It is measured by fairness, judicial discipline, constitutional responsibility and respect for the ordinary person.

THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT A ROYAL COURT, AND INDIAN CITIZENS ARE NOT ITS SUBJECTS

India abolished monarchy when it adopted a republican Constitution.

No judge, minister, bureaucrat or public office-holder is entitled to behave as though constitutional authority places them above the people.

The higher the office, the greater the responsibility.

A judge may refuse an urgent hearing. A judge may reject an application. A judge may disagree with the constitutional argument advanced by counsel.

But a citizen who approaches the highest court with a grievance should not be made to feel that the only solution to his problem is to disappear from the courtroom and abandon his concern.

“Don’t travel by air” may be a short judicial remark.

But the public debate it has generated is about something much bigger: whether India’s constitutional institutions are sufficiently sensitive to the financial, social and practical challenges experienced by ordinary citizens.

Five crore, nearly six crore, pending cases. Millions of litigants waiting. Families spending their savings on litigation. Consumers struggling with rising costs. Businesses fighting delayed proceedings. Passengers facing extraordinary festival fares.

Against this backdrop, citizens are entitled to expect a judiciary that understands their problems rather than appearing dismissive of them.

Judges do not need to live like ordinary citizens. They need not surrender lawful facilities, official residences or institutional protections.

But they must never forget that these privileges exist because the republic has entrusted them with a public responsibility.

A judge may occupy a constitutional office, but he does not occupy a throne.

A court may command respect, but it cannot demand immunity from criticism.

And a taxpayer may be told that flying is optional, but he must never be made to feel that justice, dignity and institutional sensitivity are optional too.

The question is not whether judges deserve comfort. They deserve the facilities necessary to discharge their duties independently.

The question is whether those who enjoy such comfort can remember the millions who do not.

Because the Indian citizen is not asking for a palace, a government car or a toll-free journey.

He is asking for something far more fundamental: a fair hearing, an accessible justice system, a responsive regulator and a little respect.

That should not be too much to expect from the highest court of the world’s largest democracy.