The Delhi excessive courtroom on Wednesday reprimanded the Indian Railways for promoting tickets far past the capability of practice coaches, stating that the February 15 stampede at New Delhi railway station — which claimed not less than 18 lives — was an “unfortunate”, however “avoidable” tragedy if the Railways had adhered to its personal guidelines.
The February 15 stampede occurred round 9.55pm when 1000’s of passengers gathered at platforms 14 and 15 to board three Prayagraj-bound trains. (Sanchit Khanna/HT PHOTO)
A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela, whereas listening to a public curiosity litigation (PIL) filed by NGO Arth Vidhi, questioned the Railways for neglecting authorized provisions that mandate the fixing of variety of passengers per compartment.
The judges pointed to Part 57 of the Railways Act, 1989, which mandates that railway authorities decide and show the utmost variety of passengers permitted per coach.
“If you fix the number of passengers to be accommodated in a coach, then why do you sell more tickets than that number? That’s the problem,” the courtroom instructed solicitor normal Tushar Mehta, who represented the Railways.
It emphasised that implementing this provision correctly might stop such tragedies. “If you could implement a simple thing in a positive and proper manner, such situations can be avoided. In times of rush, you can increase the number of passengers to be accommodated per coach, depending on exigencies, but not fixing the strength to be accommodated in a particular coach — this provision appears to have been neglected all along,” the bench stated.
The courtroom additionally took challenge with the lax implementation of Part 147 of the Railways Act, which penalises unauthorised entry into railway premises. It famous that implementing this regulation strictly might have helped management the gang and prevented the chaos that led to the stampede.
“Anybody roaming on the platform without a platform ticket or a train ticket should be dealt with in accordance with Section 147. It is not that you do not take action – you do take action – but it is inadequate, perhaps,” the courtroom noticed.
The February 15 stampede occurred round 9.55pm when 1000’s of passengers gathered at platforms 14 and 15 to board three Prayagraj-bound trains. Confusion over a particular practice announcement led to a lethal crush, killing not less than 18 and injuring 12 others.
Advocate Aditya Trivedi, representing Arth Vidhi, argued that the authorities have been negligent in that they issued limitless tickets with out making certain ample amenities, resulting in overcrowding and an absence of crowd management.
“Airports have mechanisms to track the number of people present. Indian Railways has no such mechanism. If Railways is not following its own rules, then how can we expect security?” Trivedi submitted.
In response, SG Mehta, showing for the Railways, maintained that the administration was following the regulation and had issued circulars for passenger security. He admitted that unreserved compartments usually see an inflow of individuals, particularly from poorer sections of society, however argued that India faces “country-specific issues” that make absolute enforcement troublesome.
“We have already issued a circular, but some poor people do come and sit in the unreserved class. There is space, and we have our own country specific issues,” stated Mehta.
He stated compensation has been supplied to sufferer households. He assured the courtroom that the Railway Board would study the considerations raised.
The courtroom then directed the Railway Board to evaluate the implementation of Sections 57 and 147 on the highest degree and submit an affidavit detailing the selections taken by March 26, the following date of listening to.
“Having regard to the object of these provisions, we are of the opinion that they have been enacted by Parliament for a reason. The petition highlights the significance of adequate implementation. Let the issues be examined at the highest level in the Railway Board, as suggested by the Solicitor General. Thereafter, a short affidavit may be filed by the respondents, giving details of the Railway Board’s decision,” the courtroom order said.