Supreme Court Expresses Strong Displeasure At Railways For Not Properly Explaining Investments On Safety
The Supreme Court recently expressed strong displeasure over the manner in which the Railways has assisted the Court in a case concerning railway safety and policy priorities, observing that the material placed on record did not clearly explain how funds are being allocated and utilized.Previously, the Court had flagged insufficient budgetary allotment for the railway, and had sought details...
The Supreme Court recently expressed strong displeasure over the manner in which the Railways has assisted the Court in a case concerning railway safety and policy priorities, observing that the material placed on record did not clearly explain how funds are being allocated and utilized.
Previously, the Court had flagged insufficient budgetary allotment for the railway, and had sought details of the safety measures taken.
Following that, Janak Kumar Garg, Chief Commissioner of Railway Safety, appeared before a bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan to explain steps taken for improving passenger safety.
Garg suggested that fencing of railway tracks should be expedited as a basic safety measure to prevent accidents caused by people and animals crossing railway lines. He informed the Court that more than 15,000 kilometres of railway tracks have already been fenced, and the Railways plans to complete the remaining work within three to four years.
He also pointed out that many accidents occur at railway stations because passengers cross tracks to move between platforms. To address this, he suggested constructing foot over bridges at stations, prioritising those with heavy passenger traffic.
Additionally, he proposed installing lifts for senior citizens and ramps for differently-abled persons at busy stations.
Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, appearing for the Union government, told the Court that these suggestions would be communicated to the railway authorities.
Court Questions Railways' Spending Priorities
The bench then sought assistance from the ASG on the main issue before it: how the Railways has prioritised its investments and spending.
Referring to an affidavit filed by the Railways, the Court said it was unable to clearly understand the financial figures placed before it.
“Upon perusal of the affidavit… we are not able to understand clearly as to what the actual position is,” the Court remarked, adding that even after attempting to reconcile the figures, it could not decipher what the affidavit disclosed.
The bench recorded “strong displeasure” over the manner in which the case had been conducted by the Railways and over the way officials had assisted and briefed the government's law officers.
According to the Court, the material presented appeared to project matters in a particular way without addressing the larger public interest or the Court's concerns.
The bench emphasised that the proceedings were intended to ensure benefits for “the common man and not the privileged few who will be using the facilities of the Railways.” It added that such focus did not appear to be reflected in the Railways' policies and budgetary allocations.
Concern Over Insurance For Counter Ticket Passengers
The Court also examined the issue of railway travel insurance, noting that passengers who book tickets online can opt for insurance at a nominal cost, while the same facility is not available to those purchasing tickets over the counter.
Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Shikhil Suri pointed out this disparity before the Court.
In response, the ASG submitted that the Railways was still working out a mechanism to identify passengers purchasing physical tickets, so that insurance certificates could be issued while preventing fraudulent claims.
However, the Court indicated that such a distinction cannot be justified merely on the basis of the mode of ticket purchase.
The bench observed that when the Railways sells tickets, it must take steps to use available technology to identify passengers and extend the same insurance facility to those purchasing tickets at counters.
The Court also remarked that no significant progress appeared to have been made on the ground despite the ongoing proceedings, noting that only routine measures seemed to be continuing at a slow pace.
It warned that if proper assistance and clear data were not placed before the Court at the next hearing, it may consider taking judicial notice and issuing stringent directions, including mechanisms to independently ascertain the ground situation.
At the request of the Union government, the Court granted time to file a detailed and comprehensive affidavit setting out comparative data on fund allocation, utilisation and the reasons for prioritising particular projects.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 1, 2026.
At last, the bench added that if proper assistance is not given by Railways, or relevant facts and figures are not disclosed, judicial notice may be taken and stringent orders passed.
Appearance: ASG Vikramjit Banerjee; Senior Advocates Shikhil Suri (Amicus Curiae) and Nachiketa Joshi
Case Title: Union of India v. Radha Yadav, Miscellaneous Application No.741-742/2019