Dark Patterns vs. Executive Authority: Lessons from India's Aborted Airline Seat-Quota Directive

In March 2026, the Ministry of Civil Aviation directed the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to require all domestic airlines to make a minimum of 60% of seats on every flight available for selection at no additional charge, effective 20 April 2026. The directive was motivated by well-documented consumer complaints regarding deceptive digital booking practices, algorithmic seat separation, and the opaque presentation of ancillary charges by major Indian carriers. Within fourteen days and following coordinated opposition from the Federation of Indian Airlines (FIA), the Ministry suspended the seat-quota provision on 2 April 2026. This article analyses the regulatory episode across five interlocking legal frameworks: consumer protection and dark patterns; the statutory limits of DGCA authority under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024; the law of carriage; competition law; and administrative procedural fairness. A comparative analysis of the European Union and United States frameworks is also provided. The authors argue that while the directive was animated by legitimate objectives, it was legally vulnerable on authority grounds and procedurally deficient. A dedicated statutory Passenger Rights Act, transparency-based pricing mandates, sector-specific dark pattern enforcement, and mandatory stakeholder consultation offer a more durable path forward.