Delhi High Court orders Rs 3 lakh for train gangrape survivor, holds Railways liable

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the victim’s father before the NHRC on March 9, 2013, after his daughter was gang-raped inside a train. The NHRC subsequently directed the Chairman, Railway Board to pay Rs 3 lakh as compensation. The Railways challenged that recommendation.

Justice Amit Bansal rejected the Railways’ argument that the NHRC lacked jurisdiction. (Image enhanced using AI)

Railways approached high court

The NHRC had, on April 30, 2014, recommended payment of Rs 3 lakh to the survivor and reiterated the direction through subsequent communications in July 2014 and January 2015.

The union ministry of railways later filed a representation contending that compensation under the Railways Act could only be determined by the Railway Claims Tribunal and that the NHRC lacked jurisdiction to direct such payment. After the commission rejected that objection on April 19, 2016, the Railways approached the Delhi High Court.

Before the high court, the Railways argued that the offence had been committed by private individuals in the train, who were later convicted, and not by any railway employee. It also argued that because the train was standing at the railways station, responsibility for law and order rested with the Government Railway Police under the state government.

The Railways further contended that the incident did not qualify as an “untoward incident” under Section 123 of the Railways Act and therefore compensation under Section 124A was not payable. “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,” said the court.

Rejecting these arguments, Justice Bansal held that Section 123(c) of the Railways Act expressly covers violent attacks occurring not only inside trains but also on railway platforms and other places within railway premises. The court observed that the Railways’ contention that the train was stationary had “no legs to stand on” because the law specifically includes incidents occurring on railway platforms.

Railways liable

The high court emphasised that Section 124A creates a no-fault liability for the Railways. It noted that the provision makes the Railways liable to compensate passengers injured in an untoward incident regardless of whether there was any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration.

The court found that the survivor was a bona fide passenger in the train travelling with a valid ticket and that the assault occurred inside the railway compartment.

“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,” Justice Bansal said, adding that the involvement of private individuals did not absolve the Railways of their statutory obligation to compensate the victim.

The high court also rejected the Railways’ argument that the NHRC lacked jurisdiction. “NHRC has correctly exercised its jurisdiction in recommending immediate monetary relief to a victim of gross human rights violation,” the court said.

Quoting from the earlier judgment, Justice Bansal reiterated that human rights commissions are not meant to be “toothless tigers” but “fierce defenders” of the right to life and dignity. Governments may challenge their recommendations before a court, but cannot simply disregard them.

Compensation to be released within two weeks

When the writ petition was admitted in May 2016, the Delhi High Court had directed the Railways to deposit Rs 3 lakh with the registrar general of the court while staying the operation of the NHRC’s orders. With the petition now dismissed, the interim stay has been vacated.

The high court directed its registry to release the deposited amount, along with the accrued interest, to the survivor within two weeks. Holding that the NHRC had correctly exercised its jurisdiction in recommending immediate monetary relief for a gross human rights violation, the court concluded that there was no ground to interfere with its orders.