Bhubaneswar: The role of Indian Railways in the deadly New Delhi Railway Station stampede that took life of eighteen innocent lives some four days ago, has come under the scrutiny of the Delhi High court.
Hearing a PIL on New Delhi Railway Station stampede, the Delhi High Court Wednesday sought the response of Union government, Indian Railways and Railway Board.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Arth Vidhi in Delhi HC has sought safety measures required to prevent stampedes isimilar to the one which happened recently at New Delhi Railway Station (NDLS) in future.
The two-Judge Division Bench of Delhi HC led by Chief Justice DK Upadhyay along with Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has asked some simple probing questions to the Indian Railways. The Bench opined that had Railways followed its own statute, the stampede could have been prevented.
The Bench asked the Railways big..
"If you fix the number of passengers to be accommodated in a coach then why do you sell, why the number of tickets sold exceeds that number? That is a problem."
The Court asked the question referring to Section 57 of the Railways Act, 1989.
WHAT IS SECTION 57 OF RAILWAYS ACT?
This section deals with maximum number of passengers for each compartment —
As per the Section:
“Subject to the approval of the Central Government, every railway administration shall fix the maximum number of passengers which may be carried in each compartment of every description of carriage, and shall exhibit the number so fixed in a conspicuous manner inside or outside each compartment in Hindi, English and also in one or more of the regional languages commonly in use in the areas served by the railway.”
This section provisions and mandates that the Railway administration shall fix the maximum number of passengers which may be carried in a compartment.
In general compartments also, numbering of seats were there. But due to sale of excess tickets than be accommodated in the compartment, unreserved coaches in train portray crammed state of affairs.
This leads to overcrowding and stampede like situations then arise.
The petitioner's counsel argued in the Delhi HC that Railways don’t have any rule for unreserved class which lead to such sorry state of affairs.
"We highlight Section 57 and 157 of Railways Act. Airports have mechanisms to know how many people are there. Indian Railways has no such mechanism. There is no notification or circular for unreserved class. If Railways is not following its own rules, then how can we expect security."
The counsel further highlighted the following:
"If we go to station right now, we will see a lot of crowd without platform ticket and train ticket. We don’t see any compliance with the Railways Circular requiring platform ticket. If Railways had complied with its own rules, a lot of things could have been prevented. We have come in larger public interest. I am not commenting on infrastructure or any policy."
WHAT DELHI HC SAID?
Hearing the matter, Delhi HC said:
"If you implement a simple thing in a positive manner in letter and spirit, such situation can be avoided. On rush days you may increase that number to accommodate the rush depending on exigencies which keep on arriving from time to time. But not fixing the strength to be accommodated in a coach, this provision appears to have been neglected all along.
Justice Gedela asked a significant question to the Railways: .
"Are you aware of how many lakhs of people were at the station that day? Infrastructurally, it may not be possible to control that kind of crowd. The subsequent measures were taken. It is not something like a railway accident to claim negligence."
The Court further said, "You can file an affidavit and then we can dispose it of as per your reply. In your reply, you show what steps you will take to implement. File a short reply."
Chief Justice Upadhyay after hearing the arguments and remarked that there should be no opposition to the PIL. Justice Upadhyay said:
"His (petitioner) concern is not confined to the unfortunate incident. His concern is this situation would not have arisen if the Railways had complied with its rules. He is asking directions to Railways to implement its rules in future. I am understanding there should not be any opposition."
SOLICITIOR GENERAL’S COUNTER
Appearing for the Indian Railways, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that he was not taking an adversarial stand.
Going through the prayers made in the petition, SG said,
"This (section 57) is law, we are bound by it. No mandamus needed for it."
The SG then said Railways would go into the issues raised.
The SG further added,
"Second prayer is to direct Railways to frame guidelines for issuance of general class unreserved ticket for benefit and safety of general people. We have already issued a circular in this regard but some poor people do come and sit there. We have country specific issues. During rush hours crowd that is generally not anticipated, such cases arise. Railway will go into this question."
"Third prayer is to direct compensation that has already been given, of course it cannot be enough. We respect loss of life. Infrastructure or implementation of roles in something unprecedented has its own limitations."
DELHI HC ORDER TO RAILWAYS
In the order passed today, the Court said,
"Having regard to the object of these provisions, we are of the opinion that these have been enacted by the parliament. The petition highlights the significance of adequate implementation of these provisions. Let issues be examined at the highest level in the Railway Board as suggested by SG. Thereafter, a short affidavit may be filed by the respondents, giving details of the Railway Board’s decision."
The matter will be heard next on March 26.
