Why do you sell more tickets than seats’: Delhi HC slams Railways

The bench questioned the Railways for neglecting legal provisions that mandate the fixing of number of passengers per compartment

The Delhi high court on Wednesday reprimanded the Indian Railways for selling tickets far beyond the capacity of train coaches, stating that the February 15 stampede at New Delhi railway station — which claimed at least 18 lives — was an “unfortunate”, but “avoidable” tragedy if the Railways had adhered to its own rules.

The February 15 stampede occurred around 9.55pm when thousands of passengers gathered at platforms 14 and 15 to board three Prayagraj-bound trains. (Sanchit Khanna/HT PHOTO)

A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by NGO Arth Vidhi, questioned the Railways for neglecting legal provisions that mandate the fixing of number of passengers per compartment.

The judges pointed to Section 57 of the Railways Act, 1989, which mandates that railway authorities determine and display the maximum number of passengers permitted per coach.

“If you fix the number of passengers to be accommodated in a coach, then why do you sell more tickets than that number? That’s the problem,” the court told solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who represented the Railways.

It emphasised that enforcing this provision properly could prevent such tragedies. “If you could implement a simple thing in a positive and proper manner, such situations can be avoided. In times of rush, you can increase the number of passengers to be accommodated per coach, depending on exigencies, but not fixing the strength to be accommodated in a particular coach — this provision appears to have been neglected all along,” the bench said.

The court also took issue with the lax implementation of Section 147 of the Railways Act, which penalises unauthorised entry into railway premises. It noted that enforcing this law strictly could have helped control the crowd and prevented the chaos that led to the stampede.

“Anybody roaming on the platform without a platform ticket or a train ticket should be dealt with in accordance with Section 147. It is not that you do not take action – you do take action – but it is inadequate, perhaps,” the court observed.

The February 15 stampede occurred around 9.55pm when thousands of passengers gathered at platforms 14 and 15 to board three Prayagraj-bound trains. Confusion over a special train announcement led to a deadly crush, killing at least 18 and injuring 12 others.

Advocate Aditya Trivedi, representing Arth Vidhi, argued that the authorities were negligent in that they issued unlimited tickets without ensuring sufficient facilities, leading to overcrowding and a lack of crowd control.

“Airports have mechanisms to track the number of people present. Indian Railways has no such mechanism. If Railways is not following its own rules, then how can we expect security?” Trivedi submitted.

In response, SG Mehta, appearing for the Railways, maintained that the administration was following the law and had issued circulars for passenger safety. He admitted that unreserved compartments often see an influx of people, especially from poorer sections of society, but argued that India faces “country-specific issues” that make absolute enforcement difficult.

“We have already issued a circular, but some poor people do come and sit in the unreserved class. There is space, and we have our own country specific issues,” said Mehta.

He said compensation has been provided to victim families. He assured the court that the Railway Board would examine the concerns raised.

The court then directed the Railway Board to assess the implementation of Sections 57 and 147 at the highest level and submit an affidavit detailing the decisions taken by March 26, the next date of hearing.

“Having regard to the object of these provisions, we are of the opinion that they have been enacted by Parliament for a reason. The petition highlights the significance of adequate implementation. Let the issues be examined at the highest level in the Railway Board, as suggested by the Solicitor General. Thereafter, a short affidavit may be filed by the respondents, giving details of the Railway Board’s decision,” the court order stated.