Why do you sell excess tickets? Delhi High Court to Indian Railways after New Delhi station stampede

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the response of Union government, Indian Railways and Railway Board on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking safety measures to prevent stampedes similar to the one which happened recently at New Delhi Railway Station (NDLS). .During the hearing of the PIL, the Division Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela questioned the Railways for selling tickets in excess of the number of passengers that can be accommodated in a coach."If you fix the number of passengers to be accommodated in a coach then why do you sell, why the number of tickets sold exceed that number ? That is a problem," the Court said.In particular, the Court referred to Section 57 of the Railways Act which mandates that the administration shall fix the maximum number of passengers which may be carried in a compartment."If you implement a simple thing in a positive manner in letter and spirit, such situation can be avoided. On rush days you may increase that number to accommodate the rush depending on exigencies which keep on arriving from time to time. But not fixing the strength to be accommodated in a coach, this provision appears to have been neglected all along," the Court remarked..The Court was hearing a petition moved by Arth Vidhi, an organisation of a group of lawyers, entrepreneurs and others professionals, in the backdrop of the recent stampede which resulted into death of at least 18 people at NDLS. The station was overcrowded due to the ongoing rush of people to take part in the Maha Kumbh in Uttar Pradesh. The PIL filed through advocate Aditya Trivedi said that various legal provisions and rules under the Railways Act should be implemented properly to prevent such incidents in future.."This petition highlights mismanagement, gross negligence and complete failure of administration that caused the stampede that occurred on February 15 at New Delhi Railway Station," the counsel told the Court today.Justice Gedela pointed out that measures have been taken subsequently."Are you aware of how many lakhs of people were at the station that day? Infrastructurally it may not be possible to control that kind of crowd. The subsequent measures were taken. It is not something like a railway accident to claim negligence."However, the petitioner's counsel insisted on the seriousness of the issue and highlighted the failures of Railways."We highlight Section 57 and 157 of Railways Act. Airports have mechanisms to know how many people are there. Indian Railways has no such mechanism. There is no notification or circular for unreserved class. If Railways is not following its own rules, then how can we expect security," he said.The counsel further submitted that he was not raising the issue of infrastructure. "If we go to station right now, we will see a lot of crowd without platform ticket and train ticket. We don’t see any compliance with the Railways Circular requiring platform ticket. If Railways had complied with its own rules, a lot of things could have been prevented. We have come in larger public interest. I am not commenting on infrastructure or any policy.".Chief Justice Upadhyaya appeared to convinced with the arguments and remarked that there should be no opposition to the PIL. "His (petitioner) concern is not confined to the unfortunate incident. His concern is this situation would not have arisen if the Railways had complied with its rules. He is asking directions to Railways to implement its rules in future. I am understanding there should not be any opposition," Justice Upadhyaya said..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Indian Railways, submitted that he was not taking an adversarial stand. Going through the prayers made in the petitioner, Mehta said,"This is law, we are bound by it. No mandamus needed for it."Mehta further said Railways would go into the issues raised."Next prayer is to direct Railways to frame guidelines for issuance of general class unreserved ticket for benefit and safety of general people. We have already issued a circular in this regard but some poor people do come and sit there. We have country specific issues. During rush hours crowd that is generally not anticipated, such cases arise. Railway will go into this question."On the compensation aspect, Mehta said,"Third prayer is to direct compensation that has already been given, of course it cannot be enough. We respect loss of life. Infrastructure or implementation of roles in something unprecedented has its own limitations.".When the Court pointed to the non-implementation of rules, SG Mehta said Railway Board will look into the highlighted issues.You take action but it is inadequate perhaps, the Court then remarked while seeking a response from the authorities."You can file an affidavit and then we can dispose it of as per your reply. In your reply, you show what steps you will take to implement. File a short reply," the Court said..In the order passed today, the Court said,"Having regard to the object of these provisions, we are of the opinion that these have been enacted by the parliament. The petition highlights the significance of adequate implementation of these provisions. Let issues be examined at the highest level in the Railway Board as suggested by SG. Thereafter, a short affidavit may be filed by the respondents, giving details of the Railway Board’s decision."The matter will be heard next on March 26..[Read Order]