Delhi HC Declines Intervention on Stampede Refunds, Advises Legal Alternatives

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently declined to intervene in an application seeking refunds for individuals who missed their train due to a stampede at New Delhi Railway Station. Instead, the court advised the affected parties to explore other legal remedies available to them.

Background of the Case

The application was filed by individuals who were unable to board their train due to the stampede and did not receive a refund for their tickets. The bench, comprising Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Tushar Rao Gedela, observed that the matter was of a private nature and suggested pursuing alternative legal remedies.

Court’s Stand on the Matter

The court emphasized that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is meant to enforce legal provisions impacting the public at large. Individual grievances, such as ticket refunds, do not fall within the scope of PILs. Following legal arguments, the counsel for the petitioners withdrew the application, opting instead to pursue other legal remedies, which the court permitted.

Railways’ Responsibility and PIL on Stampede

On February 19, the Delhi High Court had sought a response from the Indian Railways regarding a PIL filed over the stampede that occurred during peak hours. The tragic event resulted in the loss of 18 lives and was attributed to overcrowding at Platform No. 16.

The PIL claims that the stampede was caused by multiple long-distance trains arriving and departing simultaneously, particularly on the Delhi-Prayagraj route during the Mahakumbh. It argues that the tragedy resulted from administrative negligence and violated the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Legal Framework and Responsibilities of Railways

The court highlighted concerns regarding the ineffective implementation of key provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, including:

• Section 57: Mandates a limit on the number of passengers per railway compartment.
• Section 147: Requires individuals without a reservation to possess a valid platform ticket for station entry.

The petition, filed by Arth Vidhi, a group of lawyers and entrepreneurs through Advocates Aditya Trivedi and Shubhi Pastor, argues that the Railways failed to enforce these provisions. The ongoing Mahakumbh in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, necessitated stricter enforcement of these regulations to prevent overcrowding.

Railway Administration’s Response

The Solicitor General, representing the Railways, assured the court that the administration was not treating the case as adversarial litigation. The Railway Board has been directed to examine the matter and submit a short affidavit outlining the steps it intends to take. The next hearing is scheduled for March 26.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Its Role in Society

What is PIL?

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal mechanism that allows individuals or groups to seek judicial intervention on issues affecting the public at large. Unlike private litigation, which focuses on individual rights, PILs aim to enforce constitutional and statutory provisions for the greater good.

Constitutional Provisions Related to PIL

PILs primarily derive their legitimacy from:

• Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies (Supreme Court jurisdiction).
• Article 226: Empowering High Courts to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights.
• Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty, often cited in PILs addressing safety concerns.

Where Can a PIL Be Filed?

A PIL can be filed in:

• The Supreme Court of India (under Article 32).
• Any High Court (under Article 226).
• Lower courts (in exceptional cases where fundamental rights are affected).

Significance of PIL in Addressing Public Issues

PILs play a crucial role in shaping public policy and governance by:

• Ensuring government accountability in implementing laws and policies.
• Safeguarding fundamental rights, especially for marginalized communities.
• Addressing environmental concerns, administrative failures, and human rights violations.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision on the refund case underscores the importance of understanding the scope of PILs. While PILs serve as an essential tool for judicial activism, they are not meant for personal grievances. Instead, individuals must explore legal alternatives for personal claims. Meanwhile, the court’s scrutiny of the Railways’ role in the stampede is a significant step toward ensuring public safety and enforcing legal provisions to prevent such tragedies in the future.