Railways liable to compensate passenger gang-raped inside train even when perpetrators were private persons, Delhi HC rules

On 27 August 2012, the victim, a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train, was subjected to gang rape inside a railway compartment stationed at Platform No. 5, Lakheesarai, Bihar.

Her father filed a complaint before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on 9 March 2013.

Upon considering the complaint and reports from the authorities, the NHRC directed the Chairman, Railway Board, to pay ₹3,00,000 as compensation to the victim by order dated 30 April 2014; the direction was reiterated on 17 July 2014 and 8 January 2015.

The Railways challenged the direction, contending that compensation could be determined only by the Railway Claims Tribunal and that the NHRC lacked jurisdiction.

The NHRC rejected the objection and directed payment by order dated 19 April 2016.

During the writ proceedings, the High Court directed the Railways to deposit ₹3,00,000 with the Registrar General, subject to which operation of the NHRC orders was stayed; the amount was deposited.

The victim supported the compensation direction, asserting that the Railways had failed to provide a safe environment to a bona fide passenger.

Whether the gang rape committed inside a railway compartment stationed at a railway platform constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989?

Whether the Railways were liable to pay compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act even though the offence was committed by private individuals, and not railway employees, while the train was stationary at a platform?

Whether the NHRC had jurisdiction to recommend immediate monetary compensation for the victim, and whether its orders suffered from jurisdictional error, perversity or manifest illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, which defines an “untoward incident” to include a violent attack committed by any person in or on a passenger train, or on a platform or other place within railway-station precincts.

Section 124A imposes no-fault liability on the railway administration for death or injury caused by an untoward incident, irrespective of whether the incident resulted from any wrongful act, neglect or default of the Railways, subject to the statutory exceptions; the definition of “passenger” includes a person holding a valid ticket.

Under Sections 13 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the NHRC possesses powers of inquiry akin to those of a civil court and may recommend monetary relief for human-rights violations.

Relying on Kiran Singh v. National Human Rights Commission, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 430, and Commissioner, Delhi Police v. NHRC, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1218, the Court held that NHRC recommendations are not mere opinions; they must be treated seriously and are subject to judicial review, rather than being ignored by the concerned authorities.

The Court held that the statutory definition of “untoward incident” is not confined to events occurring in a moving train.

Section 123(c) expressly covers violent attacks occurring in or on a passenger train and on a railway platform or within station premises; therefore, the fact that the train was stationed at the platform did not exclude the incident from the statutory definition.

Gang rape was held to be inherently violent and thus within the expression “violent attack” in Section 123(c).

Since the victim was a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket and the incident occurred inside a railway compartment, Section 124A imposed liability on the Railways irrespective of whether the perpetrators were railway employees or private individuals.

The Court further held that the NHRC had correctly exercised its statutory jurisdiction in recommending immediate compensation for a gross human-rights violation.

The recommendation did not suffer from jurisdictional error, perversity or manifest illegality, and therefore did not warrant interference under Article 226.

The Court upheld the NHRC’s directions requiring the Railways to pay ₹3,00,000 as compensation to the victim, holding that the gang rape constituted an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) and attracted the Railways’ no-fault liability under Section 124A, notwithstanding that the offenders were private individuals and the train was stationary at a platform.

The interim order dated 27 May 2016 was vacated, and the Registry was directed to release the deposited compensation amount, together with accrued interest, in favour of the victim within two weeks.