Ministry Of Railway vs R H Bansal And Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 29 July 2026
# DLHC011342492016
+ W.P.(C) 4696/2016 & CM APPL. 19573/2016
MINISTRY OF RAILWAY .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC and
Ms. Himanshi Singh, Advocate.
versus
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (NHRC)
AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kaoliangpou Kamei, Mr. Sunil
Kanti, Advocates for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
th th
Constitution of India, challenging the orders dated 30 April, 2014 and 19
April, 2016, passed by the National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter
‘NHRC’), New Delhi in Case No. 1037/4/19/2013-WC.
th
2. The proceedings before the NHRC arose from a complaint filed on 9
March, 2013 by the father of the victim of a gang rape case which took place
th
on 27 August 2012 inside a bogie of a passenger train at Railway Platform
no. 5 at Lakheesarai, Bihar.
3. Upon considering the complaint and the reports received from the
th
authorities, the NHRC vide order dated 30 April, 2014 noted that the
Chairman, Railway Board has to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the victim
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4696/2016 Page 1 of 7
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
18:56:58
and reiterated the said direction through subsequent communications dated
th th
17 July 2014 and 08 January 2015.
4. Subsequently, a representation was filed on behalf of the Railways,
raising an objection that compensation under the Railways Act could only be
determined by the Railway Claims Tribunal and that the NHRC lacked
th
jurisdiction. The said representation was rejected vide order dated 19 April,
2016, and the Railways were directed to make the payment of compensation.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned orders, the present writ petition
has been filed.
th
6. Vide order dated 27 May, 2016, the victim was impleaded as the
respondent no.3 on the oral request of the petitioner and the
petitioner/Railways was asked to deposit the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with the
Registrar General of this Court. Subject to the deposit, the operation of the
th th
impugned orders dated 30 April 2014 and 19 April 2016 was stayed.
7. Pursuant to the said order, the aforesaid sum has been deposited
before this Court.
8. The respondent no.3 filed a counter affidavit wherein the following
averments have been made:
8.1. The respondent was a bona fide passenger who was subjected to a
brutal gang rape inside the railway compartment and that the Railways failed
to discharge their obligation of providing a safe environment to passengers.
8.2. As regards the stand of Railways that the payment of compensation
cannot be made until the criminal case is over, there is little connection
between the criminal case and the payment of compensation as the Railways
themselves admit that the respondent no.3 was gang raped inside the railway
compartment.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4696/2016 Page 2 of 7
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
18:56:58
9. Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC appearing for the petitioner/Railways,
assails the aforesaid order passed by the NHRC by making the following
submissions:
i. The rape was committed by private individuals and not by a Railways
employee. The aforesaid individuals were duly convicted for the
offence of rape. Since no railway employee was involved in the
incident, the Railways could not have been asked to pay the
compensation.
ii. In the present case, the train was stationed at Platform no.5 at
Lakheesarai, Bihar and was not a moving train. Therefore, the
responsibility of law and order would be of the Government Railway
Police, which comes under the Administrative Control of the State
Government.
iii. The aforesaid instance would not be covered under the definition of
‘ untoward incident ’ in terms of Section 123 of the Railways Act.
Hence, Railways is not liable to pay compensation under Section
124A of the Railways Act.
10. Mr. Kaoliangpou Kamei, counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no.3 submits that the respondent no.3 was a bona fide passenger
of the Railway compartment and she had purchased a ticket for the same.
Therefore, the Railways was obliged to provide a safe environment on board
the compartment of the train. He submits that in terms of Section 124A of
the Railways Act, the Railways is bound to pay compensation on account of
an untoward incident. He further submits that the aforesaid incident falls in
the ambit of violent acts, in terms of Section 123C of the Railways Act.
11. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4696/2016 Page 3 of 7
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
18:56:58
12. The term ‘untoward incident’ has been defined in Section 123(c) of
the Railways Act, 1989, which is set out below:-
“(c) “untoward incident” means –
(i)…
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or
dacoity; or
(iii) …
by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a
waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform
or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station;”
13. It is clear from a reading of the above that “untoward incident”
includes an incident which has occurred on a train carrying passengers or in
a waiting hall or cloak room or booking office or on any platform or any
other place in the railway station. Therefore, the objection taken by the
Railways that the incident occurred not in a moving train but when the train
was at the station at a platform has no legs to stand on.
14. There is no doubt that the incident of gang rape would be covered in
the definition of “untoward incident” as it is in the nature of a violent attack.
15. Section 124A of the Railways Act is set out below:-
“124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident.– When in the
course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or
not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the
railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been
injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain
an action and recovery damages in respect thereof, the railway
administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and
to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a
passenger as a result of such untoward incident.
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by
the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to –
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4696/2016 Page 4 of 7
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
18:56:58
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(e) Any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment
unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by
the said untoward incident.
Explanation.– For the purposes of this section, “passenger” includes –
(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train
carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and
becomes a victim of an untoward incident.”
16. Section 124A mandates that when any untoward incident occurs,
whether on account of wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the
railway administration or not, which results in injury to a passenger, the
Railways would be liable to pay compensation. Section 124A makes it clear
that the Railways would be liable to pay compensation towards an untoward
incident, even if it is not on account of any wrongful act, neglect or default
by the Railways. Therefore, even if the gang rape was committed by private
individuals who were not railway employees, it would not affect the liability
of the Railways to pay compensation.
17. The fact of the matter is that the victim was a bona fide passenger
who had purchased a ticket for the journey and was travelling in the train
when the said incident occurred. The Railways were obliged to provide a
safe environment onboard the compartment of the train. Since the
unfortunate incident occurred inside a compartment of a train, the same
would be covered under the definition of an “untoward incident” as provided
in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act and the Railways would be liable to
pay compensation in terms of Section 124A of the Railways Act.
18. NHRC is a statutory body established under the Protection of Human
Rights Act, 1993, with a mandate of better protection of human rights and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4696/2016 Page 5 of 7
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
18:56:58
for matters connected therewith. Section 13 of the Act provides that the
Commission has the powers of inquiry of a civil court. Though the
recommendations made by the Commission under Section 18 of the Act are
recommendatory, they cannot be treated as mere opinions. Being the
outcome of a statutory inquiry conducted by an expert statutory body
entrusted with the protection of human rights, such recommendations
command persuasive value.
19. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in Kiran Singh v. National Human Rights
Commission , 2025 SCC OnLine Del 430. While examining the scope and
enforceability of the recommendations made by NHRC, the Division Bench
made the following pertinent observations:
“59. After having considered the reasoning in both the Allahabad High Court
and Madras High Court judgments, this Court fully agrees with the reasoning
in the said two decisions - whether in the case of compensation or in the case of
inquiry being directed. The purpose of the Human Rights Act and the reasons
for its enactment would be nullified if the Commissions are rendered
powerless and are held to be mere recommendatory bodies. The
recommendations are binding in nature. The concerned authority/government,
however, is not without remedy and can always seek judicial review of the
recommendations. Any view to the contrary, that the Human Rights
Commissions can only make recommendations, which are not binding, would
render the said Commissions completely toothless and nullify the object of
India ratifying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Court does
not agree with the stand of the Delhi Police that in each and every case, the
NHRC ought to be forced to approach the Court for implementation of its own
decisions. The NHRC is not meant to become a litigant before Courts.
60. In the opinion of this Court, human rights are not ordinary rights. These
rights are integral to Article 21 which recognizes the Right to Life.
Commissions under the Human rights Act are meant to look into any
infractions and exercise powers under the Act. Reports and
Recommendations of Human Rights Commissions need to be treated with
seriousness and not rendered edentulous or pointless. If Governments are
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4696/2016 Page 6 of 7
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
18:56:58
aggrieved, they are free to challenge the orders of State Commissions and
NHRC. But such inquiries and reports cannot be simply ignored. Human
Rights Commissions are not to be ‘toothless tigers’ but have to be ‘fierce
defenders’ safeguarding the most basic right of humans i.e., the right to live
without fear and to live with dignity. ”
[Emphasis supplied]
20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by a Single Bench of this
Court in Commissioner, Delhi Police v. NHRC , 2025 SCC OnLine Del
1218.
21. Consequently, the recommendation made by NHRC directing
payment of compensation cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional
error, perversity or manifest illegality warranting interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. Rather, NHRC has correctly exercised its
jurisdiction in recommending immediate monetary relief to a victim of gross
human rights violation, and no ground is made out to interfere with the
impugned orders.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is devoid of
th
merits and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 27 May, 2016
stands vacated.
23. The Registry shall release the aforesaid amount for compensation in
favour of the respondent no.3 along with the accrued interest within two (2)
weeks from today.
AMIT BANSAL, J
JULY 29, 2026
at
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4696/2016 Page 7 of 7
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:03.08.2026
18:56:58