Political Controversy Erupts Over Increased Hajj Airfare in India

The Indian government's recent decision to raise Hajj airfare by ₹10,000 has ignited a political firestorm. While officials cite rising global oil prices as the reason, opposition leaders argue that this move exploits pilgrims. The Hajj Committee's circular mandates that all travelers must pay the increased fare by May 15, leading to widespread discontent among those planning the pilgrimage. Prominent figures like Asaduddin Owaisi have called for the retraction of this fee, emphasizing the financial strain it places on ordinary pilgrims. As the debate intensifies, the government defends its actions, claiming it has negotiated to minimize the fare increase. This article delves into the implications of this decision and the ongoing political discourse surrounding it.

By Narendra Chaudhary May 1, 2026, 13:40 IST

Hajj Committee's Airfare Hike Sparks Debate

The decision by the Hajj Committee of India, operating under the Ministry of Minority Affairs, to raise airfares for Hajj pilgrims by ₹10,000 has ignited a political controversy. While the government defends this move as a necessity amid a global oil crisis, the opposition has labeled it as exploitation of the pilgrims. According to a circular from the Hajj Committee, this adjustment in airfare is attributed to a significant surge in the prices of Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF). This announcement has led to widespread anger among travelers, prompting calls from the opposition for the government to retract the decision.

In a circular issued by the government, it was stated that the increase in airfare was essential due to the current conditions in the Middle East.

Since the onset of the Iran war on February 28, global ATF prices have more than doubled. Typically, ATF costs account for 30-40% of an airline's operating expenses, and the price hike has adversely affected the operations of several airlines.

The Hajj Committee's circular specifies that the revised airfare includes an additional charge of $100 per passenger, regardless of their departure location, which must be borne by the travelers. Furthermore, all pilgrims planning to undertake the Hajj this year are required to pay the increased airfare of ₹10,000 by May 15. The Hajj pilgrimage is an annual Islamic journey to Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

However, this increase in airfare has not been well-received by travelers. The opposition has joined in condemning the hike as "unjust."

Leading the charge, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi has urged the central government to annul the circular, describing the additional ₹10,000 fee as exploitation of the pilgrims.

Owaisi tweeted, "Just a few months ago, every passenger flying from Mumbai was charged ₹90,844. This is nearly double the current rates for ordinary travelers."

He further questioned, "Are travelers being punished for choosing to go through the Hajj Committee? Most pilgrims are not wealthy; they save for years to afford this journey. It is not a luxury for them."

Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi also questioned the necessity of raising airfares just before the Hajj pilgrimage.

Pratapgarhi remarked, "Why was this increase imposed at the last minute when the total fare had already been established?"

As the controversy escalated, Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju intervened to clarify the government's position. Rijiju explained that due to rising ATF prices, airlines initially sought an additional $300-$400 from each pilgrim. However, through negotiations, the government managed to reduce this increase to just $100.

Rijiju tweeted, "We cannot blame airlines for the rise in ATF prices... This decision was made with complete transparency and goodwill to ensure that the Hajj pilgrimage proceeds without any hindrance."

The Ministry of Minority Affairs also addressed the opposition's allegations of "exploitation," stating that the government's intervention saved pilgrims between $200-$300. The ministry asserted, "This is not exploitation. It is the government absorbing pressure to protect pilgrims from a much larger financial burden."