Kerala High Court Upholds Constitutionality Of Railways' Power To Remove & Prosecute Intoxicated Persons In Trains, Railway Premises

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that sufficient procedure has been laid down by the Ministry of Railways in its circular dated 14.09.2023 to avoid any arbitrariness while identifying a person as intoxicated.

“A provision in the nature of Section 145(a) of the Act is a recognition of the requirement of ensuring public order and safety and the comfort of other passengers inside a railway carriage and also premises of the railway. In the absence of such a provision in the statute, it would render a chaotic atmosphere inside the railway station and within the railway carriage. In such circumstances it cannot be held that the provision is arbitrary or unconstitutional,” the Court added.

The Court was considering a writ petition seeking to declare that Section 145(a) was unconstitutional as the same is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The plea also sought that the provision be read down to apply only where an intoxicated person commits nuisance or any other acts mentioned in clauses (b) or (c) of the Section.

According to the petitioner, who was the Managing Director of a tour and travel company, the provision could be used in an arbitrary manner since no definition if provided for the phrase “state of intoxication”. He contended that the same would affect free movement of persons, if found in railway premises after consuming alcohol.

He preferred the plea after coming to know that the Southern Railways had launched a drive to remove drunken passengers and book them. He also got to know that the Railway Protection Force personnel have been provided with breath analysers.

The Railway authorities argued that the petition was not maintainable since the petitioner has not been subjected to any action under the provision. It was also pointed out that the intend of the provision is to maintain law and order as well as to prevent untoward incidents and crimes in the railway premises, affecting especially women passengers. It was further submitted in majority of the cases of persons falling down from trains, they were under the influence of alcohol.

The Railways also invited the attention of the Court to the 2023 circular, which provided guidelines to the Railway Protection Force as to the mode in which the challenged provision is to be implemented. Moreover, a person found in state of intoxication would be initially identified through breath analyser; after removal from railway premises, he would be subjected to a medical test and only then would criminal proceedings be initiated, it was stated.

The Government Pleader representing the State also sailed along with the Railways.

After hearing the parties, the Court examined Section 145 as well as the Circular issued by the Ministry. It noted that the Circular mentions various methods to identify factors of intoxication and that in cases these signs are there in a person, he will be considered for examination or other parameters to conclude that he is in a state of intoxication.

It rejected the contention that the degree of intoxication can vary and lack of proper definition would lead to arbitrary exercise of power since the provision itself lays down that a person initially found to be intoxicated would only be removed. It added:

“The initial appreciation of the 'state of intoxication' only results in removal of the person, which may have to be followed by a prosecution to end in conviction… At the stage of removal from a railway carriage or from the premises, if a blood test is stipulated, the same would lead to an anomalous situation where such a test would have to be carried out within the railway carriage or inside the premises itself, even before the person is removed. Such a process is practically impossible to comply with, as the analysis of the blood may take a few hours.”

The Court further observed that as per settled law, manner of implementation of a provision cannot render the provision unconstitutional and, the remedy is to approach a court of law when the power is exercised arbitrarily.

Thus, it dismissed the plea.

Case No: WP(C) No. 6451 of 2012

Case Title: K.N. Shastry v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 481

Counsel for the petitioner: S. Arun Raj, P. Daniel

Counsel for the respondents: T.C. Krishna – Senior Panel Counsel, A. Dinesh Rao – SC – Railways, P. Parameswaran Nair – ASGI, O.M. Shalina - DSGI

Click to Read/Download Judgment