Railway Authorities Can't Deboard Passenger Holding Valid Ticket Merely Because He Is Going For Protest: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that the railway authorities cannot de-board a passenger holding a valid ticket merely because his travel was for conducting a protest. Justice B. Pugalendhi noted that, as per the Railways Act 1989, a person could be de-boarded only in limited circumstances like travelling without a ticket, having an infectious disease, or travelling in unauthorised parts. The court added that if a person with a valid ticket was de-boarded for other reasons, it would amount to an offence for which action could be taken against the officials. “Sections 55, 56, and 156 of the Railways Act, 1989, empower Railway authorities to deboard persons only in limited circumstances, viz., travelling without a ticket, suffering from infectious disease, or travelling in unauthorised parts of the train. None of these provisions permits deboarding of a passenger holding a valid ticket merely because he intends to protest. If such deboarding occurs, it would amount to an offence for which action must be taken against the concerned officials,” the court said. The court was hearing a petition by P. Ayyakannu seeking to prohibit the Central government, the State Government, and the police from interfering with his free movement. He submitted that he was the president of an organisation formed for the welfare of farmers and for promoting river water linkage. Ayyakannu submitted that he and his organisation members were travelling to New Delhi but were de-boarded from the train despite holding valid tickets. He argued that they were deliberately de-boarded to prevent them from proceeding to New Delhi to conduct a peaceful demonstration. The Trichy Police Commissioner, on the other hand, opposed the plea and submitted that the petitioner used to conduct protests without prior permission and even when permission was obtained, he used to violate the conditions. It was also submitted that he used to cause public nuisance in his protests by instigating the members, conducting fasts involving senior citizens, participating in public meetings half naked, using human skulls and bones as garlands, etc. The police informed that 73 cases had been registered against him. The police argued that though Ayyakannu's motive appeared legal, his methods amounted to public nuisance with the underlying object to draw public attention. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that while the petitioner was entitled to free movement under Article 19 of the Constitution, this right was subject to reasonable restrictions. Pointing that the petitioner habitually violated the conditions of permission and created law and order issues, it was argued that the State had a bounden duty to maintain law and order and for preventing offences. Though the court observed that the authorities could not have de-boarded Ayyakannu when he held a valid ticket, it added that his methods of agitation were not compatible with lawful protest. The court observed that the demonstrations required prior permission and when such permission was conducted, the conditions should be respected. “the right to movement and protest is not absolute. Citizens are equally bound by their fundamental duties. The petitioner's methods of agitation, including climbing cellphone towers, endangering lives of senior citizens, or using skulls and bones in public protests, are not compatible with lawful protest. The law requires prior permission before conducting demonstrations, and when such permission is granted, conditions must be respected,” the court said. In the present case, the court noted that Ayyakannu had not provided particulars of the alleged de-boarding incidents. The court added that without specific materials, it could not pass general directions as sought. The court, however, gave liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the concerned officials if any such de-boarding occurred in the future. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. S. Muthukrishnan Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. K. Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Mr. F. Deepak, Special Government Pleader, Mr. E. Antony Sahaya Prabhakar, Additional Public Prosecutor Case Title: P Ayyakannu v. Union of India Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 312 Case No: WP(MD)No.13455 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Railway Authorities Can't Deboard Passenger Holding Valid Ticket Merely Because He Is Going For Protest: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags