Supreme Court urges Railways to stop calling travellers second-class passengers

The Supreme Court on Friday suggested that Indian Railways reconsider its use of the expression “second-class passenger”, observing that a class label should describe the coach in which a person travels and not the person [Lata v. Union of India and Another].

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said that such a description was problematic in light of India’s history of class divisions and the constitutional commitment to equality.

“While it is ostensibly linked to the expenditure incurred by the passenger, we may suggest that the class connotation be attached to the coach and not to the passenger,” the Court said.

The Bench added that describing travellers in this manner was “offensive to the spirit of the Constitution of India”.

The observation came in a judgment awarding compensation to the widow of Chandrakant Thakkar, who died after falling from a running train. Thakkar was travelling from Raipur to Ahmedabad on November 28, 2015 aboard Train No. 12834 when he fell between Khandbada and Khatgaon. His wife, Lata, claimed that the railway ticket was kept in his travel bag, which was lost after the accident and could not be traced by the police.

The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal held that Thakkar’s death qualified as an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. However, it rejected the compensation claim because he had not been proved to be a bona fide passenger. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the decision in January 2024. It also relied on inconsistencies in the widow’s statements concerning the date of Thakkar’s journey.

The Supreme Court disagreed with both verdict. It held that non-recovery of a ticket would not, by itself, establish that a deceased person was travelling without one.

The initial burden on a claimant could be discharged by filing an affidavit setting out the relevant facts, following which the burden would shift to the Railways, the Court said. The standard of proof in such cases was the preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Bench added that provisions governing compensation for railway accidents were beneficial in nature and must be interpreted liberally. Courts and tribunals should preserve their objective of providing accessible compensation with a humanitarian perspective, it said.

The Court also examined railway manuals governing ticket checks, overcrowding, footboard travel and passenger safety. It noted that these manuals imposed specific responsibilities on station masters, guards, conductors and ticket-checking staff.

“The forethought is clearly visible, but the execution leaves much to be desired,” the Court remarked.

However, it clarified that the Railways could not be held solely responsible. It held

"The passengers themselves have an equal responsibility. Incidents such as these are not hidden from the general public and despite the painful ends that most of these people meet, there has not been a reform in habit and people still insist on being daredevils in catching trains and making their way from one place to another."

The Bench also suggested increasing the Railways’ workforce. Employing more young people would provide stable livelihoods while helping implement safety measures and preserve lives, it said.

“While we are in the era of modernisation, we may suggest that it may be only felicitous both for the Organisation and the country as a whole if the youth of today are employed by the Organisation, not only giving them a stable source of livelihood but also preserving human lives.”

The Court ultimately directed the Railways to pay Lata ₹8 lakh within 4 weeks.

The appellant was represented by Advocates Shweta Priyadarshini, Nishi Singh, Rohit Kumar Singh, Bhagwati and Shrika Gautam.

The Union of India was represented by Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, along with Advocates Seema Bengani, Prashant Singh, Sweksha, Radhika Mishra and Amrish Kumar.

[Read Judgment]