In a significant case, the Supreme Court has ordered Indian Railways to provide insurance coverage to tickets purchased at the railway reservation counters within two weeks, with effect from October 27. It said the insurance coverage should be the same as when tickets are purchased online.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddhin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan passed this order while hearing a matter pertaining to the safety of the common man and prevention of untoward incidents while travelling in trains. One of the issues raised in this case was the insurance coverage, which is currently available only to those who purchase their railway tickets online by paying a nominal additional amount.

In earlier proceedings, the bench had given time to the Indian Railway authorities to devise a mechanism for extending such coverage to those purchasing tickets offline, including persons belonging to the lowest strata of society. However, when the matter was taken up for hearing on October 6, the bench noted that there has been no progress and deemed it fit to pass the present direction.

It observed: "The Court has granted sufficient time to the authorities to devise a mechanism for extending such coverage to persons belonging to the lowest strata of society, who, in most cases, purchase their tickets at the railway reservation counters while undertaking journeys by train. As there has been no progress on this aspect either, we direct that within two weeks, i.e., with effect from 27.10.2026, all tickets sold over the counter at all railway stations shall also be covered by insurance in the same manner as tickets purchased online. The aforesaid direction shall be implemented mandatorily, failing which the responsibility shall be directly upon the Railway Board."

The directions assume significance after Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Shikhil Suri had raised this issue and highlighted that there has been an absence of response from the Railways. Subsequently, the Court had asked Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee(for the Railways) to explain why it had differentiated between online ticket purchasers and those who purchase it offline in terms of giving insurance coverage.

On October 6, the bench again recorded its "utter disappointment" and "displeasure" at the conduct of the officers from the Railways for not taking this case seriously and only extending assurance on paper. The Court noted that budgetary provisions for the areas targeted by the amicus remain underutilised.

"The Court records its utter disappointment and displeasure at the conduct of the officers of the Ministry of Railways in such a serious matter concerning the safety of the common man. The Railways have been representing before this Court that all necessary steps are being taken in this regard. However, it appears that such assurances have remained largely on paper and that no substantial change has taken place on the ground. Even the budgetary provisions indicated for the targeted areas relating to the safety of the common man and prevention of untoward incidents have not been fully utilized."

In view of the officers' conduct, the Court has directed the Chairman and the members of the Railway Board to personally be present on November 16, at 3:00 pm.

Further, the Court has clarified that the Railway Board shall be personally held responsible if the assurances given to the Court are not serious.

"The Chairman and Members of the Railway Board shall be personally held responsible, if the Court finds that assurances are being given before this Court without there being corresponding seriousness on the part of the Railways to ensure effective implementation on the ground. The Court is particularly concerned that despite budgetary provisions having been made, even basic safety requirements appear not to have been adequately complied with and that the provisions made have remained substantially unimplemented."

On budgetary allocation

Previously, the Court had also flagged insufficient budgetary allocation for the railways, and had sought details of the safety measures taken. Following that, Janak Kumar Garg, Chief Commissioner of Railway Safety, appeared. However, the bench expressed "strong displeasure" as it was unable to clearly understand the investments made.

Appearances: For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mrs.Bharti Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ayush Anand, Adv. Mr. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AoR Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shikhil Suri, Sr. Advocate (Amicus Curiae) Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, AoR (Amicus Curiae) Mr. Vibhor Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Wamika Chadha, Adv.