Madras HC Upholds Railway Berth-Hour Limits Despite Co-Passengers Refusing Sick Wife Extra Sleep, Says Staff Must Enforce Sick-Passenger Safeguard

The appellant challenged the dismissal of his writ petition, which questioned the validity of Paras 652(a) and 652(d) of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual, introduced by Commercial Circular No. 60/2017.

He claimed that, while travelling with his unwell wife, she was not permitted to use a sleeping berth beyond the prescribed hours, and that other passengers did not heed his request for accommodation under Para 652(d).

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition; the appellant then preferred this intra-court appeal.

At the appeal hearing, counsel also stated that the appellant had filed a complaint about the alleged failure to provide the accommodation contemplated by Para 652(d).

The Court applied Paras 652(a) and 652(d) of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual, introduced through Commercial Circular No. 60/2017. Para 652(a) provides sleeping accommodation between 2200 and 0600 hours and sitting accommodation for the remaining period in reserved coaches with sleeping berths.

Para 652(d) requests co-passengers to cooperate when sick persons, persons with disabilities or pregnant women need to sleep beyond the prescribed hours.

The Court held that the time restriction has a reasonable nexus to balancing passengers’ convenience and that an isolated instance of non-cooperation does not justify invalidating the restriction.

The Court considered that limiting sleeping hours enables passengers assigned middle and upper berths to use the berths for sitting during the day, thereby serving the convenience of all ticketed passengers.

It treated Para 652(d) as a safeguard for passengers requiring additional rest, and held that the appellant’s account of co-passengers declining his request was a solitary instance insufficient to establish that the time restriction was unconstitutional.

The Court further observed that the appellant could have sought assistance from onboard railway staff, the Railway Protection Force or officials at the next station.

It clarified that passengers facing difficulty may report it to railway officials, who must ensure that Para 652(d)’s safeguards are properly enforced.

As the appellant stated that he had already filed a complaint, the Court left it to him to pursue that complaint.