S.Balasubramanian vs Union of India
- Court
- Madras High Court
W.A.No.3280 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
WA No. 3280 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010992732026}
S.Balasubramanian
S/o.Swaminathan,
MIG-2, 9/1, TNHB Apartments,
Anna Main Road, K.K.Nagar,
Chennai 600 078
Appellant
Vs
1.Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways,
Railway Bhavan
New Delhi 110 001
2.The General Manager
Southern Railway, Chennai-600 003.
3.The Senior Divisional Commercial
Manager
Southern Railway,
Chennai-600 003.
Respondents
______________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
W.A.No.3280 of 2026
PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside
the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3837 of 2026,
dated 11.2.2026.
For Appellant: Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizal
for Mr.T.Dharani
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by G.Arul Murugan,J. )
This intra-Court appeal calls into question the order dated
11.2.2026 passed in W.P.No.3837 of 2026, whereby the challenge
made to Para 652(a) and Para 652(d) of the Indian Railway
Commercial Manual Vol-I, introduced through commercial Circular
No.60/2017, dated 17.8.2017, was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant, a frequent traveler, was traveling with his unwell wife.
Despite her illness, she was not permitted to use the sleeping berth
beyond the prescribed hours. Under these circumstances, the
appellant filed the writ petition challenging Para 652(a), which restricts
______________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
W.A.No.3280 of 2026
sleeping accommodations to fixed time limits. He further submitted
that though certain safeguards were made in Para 652(d), when the
appellant requested the other passengers, the same was not heeded to
and the safeguards made in Para 652(d) were not purposeful and,
therefore, the entire restriction imposed has to be declared as
unconstitutional.
3. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.
4. To balance the convenience of all passengers in three-tier
coaches, the Railways introduced time restrictions under Para 652(a)
so that ticketed passengers could sit during non-sleeping hours. Para
652(a) reads as follows:
“Sleeping accommodation between 2200 hours and
0600 hours and sitting accommodation for the rest of
the period is provided for the passengers in the
reserved coaches having sleeping accommodation.”
5. Para 652(a) restricts sleeping accommodation to the hours
between 2200 and 0600, while reserving the remaining time for sitting
______________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
W.A.No.3280 of 2026
accommodation in reserved coaches with sleeping berths. The primary
purpose of this restriction is to ensure that all valid ticket holders can
travel comfortably without causing inconvenience to co-passengers, as
passengers assigned middle and upper berths require seating space
during the day.
6. Nevertheless, to address any hardship that might be
experienced by pregnant women and persons with disabilities, the
Railways introduced Para 652(d), which reads as follows:
“Passengers are, however, requested to co-operate
with sick, persons with disability and pregnant ladies in
case they want to sleep beyond permissible time
limits.”
7. Para 652(d) clarifies that sick persons, persons with
disabilities, and pregnant women may sleep beyond the permissible
time limits and the co-passengers are requested to cooperate.
8. The restrictions under Para 652 bear a reasonable nexus for
ensuring convenience for all traveling passengers. A solitary instance,
where co-passengers declined to extend sleeping hours for the
______________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
W.A.No.3280 of 2026
appellant’s unwell wife, does not justify invalidating a rule designed to
serve the broader public interest.
9. If the appellant had any grievance despite Para 652(d)
providing concessions for persons with disabilities and pregnant
women, he could have brought the matter to the attention of the
onboard railway staff, the Railway Protection Force or officials at the
next station. Instead of seeking such assistance, the appellant
prematurely chose to challenge Paras 652(a) and (d) as
unconstitutional. In our considered view, this challenge is entirely
baseless and misplaced. We find no error in the order of the learned
Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.
10. We, however, clarify that passengers experiencing difficulties
can report them to railway officials, who are bound to ensure that the
safeguards under Para 652(d) are properly enforced.
11. The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There shall
be no order as to costs.
______________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
W.A.No.3280 of 2026
12. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the appellant has already filed complaint in respect of non-
providing of the facilities as per Para 652(d). If any such complaint is
already filed, it is for the appellant to pursue the same further.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
28.10.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
bbr
To:
1.The Secretary,
Union of India
Ministry of Railways,
Railway Bhavan
New Delhi 110 001
2.The General Manager
Southern Railway, Chennai-600 003.
3.The Senior Divisional Commercial
Manager
Southern Railway,
Chennai-600 003.
______________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )
W.A.No.3280 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
bbr
W.A.No.3280 of 2026
28.10.2026
______________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:52:21 pm )