Adani’s Rs 20 cr fee, eviction notice to private jet owners sparks backlash at Mumbai airport

Corporate jets belonging to major business houses such as Essar Group, Aditya Birla Group, JSW Steel, and the Taj Group have been served eviction notices by Adani Airports, which operates Mumbai's Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA) among others in the country

The airport operator has directed these companies to vacate their aircraft parking bays by 31 July 2025, stating that the space is required for a parallel taxiway and runway enhancement — key components of Adani’s expansion blueprint.

The decision has triggered widespread resistance, with stakeholders alleging that the move is an attempt to clear the way for future operations at the upcoming Navi Mumbai airport, also under Adani’s control.

The Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL), managed by Adani Airports Holding Limited (AAHL), has justified the move as part of essential development works at CSMIA, including the construction of a parallel taxiway and enhancements to one of the runways.

AAHL, which manages eight airports handling nearly a quarter of India’s passenger traffic, stated that the new parking charges at Navi Mumbai International Airport (NMIA) will be determined through an open bidding process in line with market forces.

However, the timing and implications of the eviction have drawn sharp criticism from business aviation operators. Many within the industry allege that the eviction is a coercive attempt to push business jet traffic to the upcoming NMIA, which is also under Adani’s management.

What has further fuelled discontent is NMIA’s proposed charge of Rs 20 crore for parking stands, in addition to an annual fee – a rate some industry experts claim lacks regulatory sanction.

According to them, only the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) has the authority to fix such tariffs, raising questions about the legality of these charges.

Private charter services have voiced concerns over the operational and financial burdens the relocation would bring. Operators say their clients prefer CSMIA due to its proximity to key areas of Mumbai, notorious for heavy traffic.

Under the new scenario, aircraft would need to drop passengers at CSMIA and then reposition to Navi Mumbai for parking, leading to an estimated 30% rise in operating costs due to extra fuel usage and dual-airport coordination.

The Business Aircraft Operators’ Association (BAOA) has strongly objected to the eviction, asserting that the business jets in question are not unauthorised occupants but paying tenants under agreed rentals. The association condemned the move as a unilateral decision inconsistent with established norms of public infrastructure governance. It has formally petitioned AERA, urging the regulator to step in and address the issue by increasing parking capacity at CSMIA instead of relocating operations.

The BAOA’s appeal was submitted as part of wider stakeholder consultations on the revision of tariffs at CSMIA for the 2024–2029 regulatory cycle. The association has also demanded a cost-neutral alternative during any temporary or permanent relocation, warning that the imposition of additional financial burdens could attract legal scrutiny.

Adding another layer to the dispute is the planned VVIP terminal at NMIA, which is scheduled to begin construction in FY2026 as part of the airport’s third phase.

Set to be completed by 2030, this terminal is designed to cater exclusively to high-profile passengers such as industrialists, Bollywood celebrities, and senior political figures. Unlike CSMIA, which lacks such a facility, NMIA’s VVIP terminal appears to be part of a long-term strategy to shift high-end aviation traffic to Navi Mumbai.

As stakeholders await clarity from the regulator, the unfolding situation highlights the growing tensions between infrastructure expansion and stakeholder consultation in one of India’s busiest aviation hubs.