New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has expressed strong displeasure over the manner in which the Indian Railways has conducted itself in proceedings concerning railway safety, observing that nothing worthwhile has moved on the ground despite the pendency of the matter.
The Court directed the Railways to file a detailed and comprehensive affidavit with a comparative chart disclosing the allocation of funds, their actual use, and the reasons for the prioritisation of one feature over another. The Court also held that passengers purchasing tickets over the counter cannot be denied the benefit of travel insurance when the same facility is available to those booking tickets online.
Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan, hearing the matter, noted that on the previous occasion the allocation of funds did not appear to be well thought out. Upon perusing the affidavit filed by the Railways, the Court found it difficult to understand and reconcile the figures placed before it. The Court recorded that even upon attempting to do so, it could not clearly understand what the affidavit disclosed.
The matter arose from Miscellaneous Application Nos. 741–742 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 1265–1266 of 2019. At the hearing, the Court had called upon Mr. Janak Kumar Garg, Chief Commissioner, Railway Safety, Indian Railways, to suggest steps towards achieving the objective of safe railway travel for the common man.
Mr. Garg submitted that the fencing of railway tracks should be taken up and expedited as one of the basic measures to reduce the frequency of accidents, where people and animals move over railway lines oblivious to the movement of trains. He submitted that an area of more than 15,000 kilometres has already been fenced and that the entire work is expected to be completed in the next three to four years. He further submitted that foot overbridges should be constructed at railway stations in a phased manner, with priority given to platforms with the highest passenger movement, along with provisions for lifts and ramps for senior citizens and differently-abled persons.
The Court recorded its strong displeasure over the functioning of the authorities in briefing the learned Additional Solicitor General, observing that an attempt appeared to have been made only to explain matters in the way the Railways wanted them projected, without taking into consideration the larger public interest or the indications of the Court. The Court reiterated that the entire exercise was for the benefit of the common man and not the privileged few, and found that this focus had not been maintained in the policies and budgetary allocations of the Railways.
On the issue of travel insurance, the learned Amicus Curiae pointed out that there was no response regarding the disparity in coverage between passengers who book tickets online, who receive insurance at a nominal extra cost, and those who purchase physical tickets over the counter. The Union of India submitted that the Railways was still working out modalities to practically identify counter-ticket buyers in order to avoid misuse and frivolous claims.
The Court firmly indicated that there cannot be a distinction in the manner in which a ticket is bought—whether online or over the counter—when granting insurance benefits to one segment and denying it to another. It held that while the issue of misuse is a factor that needs to be addressed, a solution must be evolved, but not at the cost of depriving one segment of the public of a benefit available to another. The Court stated that in the modern era, advanced technology is readily available through which identities can be fixed and recorded, and noted that the Railways must put such technology to use at ticket counters.
The Court warned that if, on the next occasion, it finds that it is not being assisted in the manner required and proper facts and figures are not placed before it, it may have to take judicial notice and pass stringent orders to ensure that it is fully informed of what is actually happening at the ground level.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 1, 2026.
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General, appeared for the Union of India. Mr. Shikhil Suri, Senior Advocate, appeared as Amicus Curiae.
Case Title: Union of India v. Radha Yadav
