Drunk on train? Kerala High Court upholds power of railways to remove such passengers

“At the stage of removal, a railway servant may be able to analyse the person only by using a breath analyser and not by conducting a blood test,” the court said in the July 29 order, explaining that requiring a blood test before removal would be impractical because analysis could take several hours.

The case arose after the petitioner came across media reports about the Southern Railway launching a drive to check drunk passengers on trains and railway premises. He was concerned that the absence of a legal definition of “state of intoxication” could result in passengers being treated as intoxicated merely because they had consumed alcohol.

‘Ambiguous phrasing’

The petitioner said that, as the managing director of a tour and travel company, he had to attend meetings and conferences and might occasionally consume alcohol in small quantities before travelling home by train. Reports that Railway Protection Force (RPF) personnel had been provided with breath analysers and asked to strengthen checks against inebriated passengers prompted his challenge.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found that the procedure laid down was sufficient to guard against arbitrary identification of intoxicated passengers.

He argued that “state of intoxication” was not defined in the Railways Act and that this could give railway personnel excessive discretion to remove passengers from trains or railway premises, affecting their travel and personal liberty.

Section 145(a) provides that a person who, in a railway carriage or on any part of a railway, “is in a state of intoxication” may be removed from the railway by a railway servant. The provision also covers nuisance, acts of indecency, abusive or obscene language and wilful interference with railway amenities affecting the comfortable travel of passengers.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the expression was ambiguous and that giving railway personnel such a power without specific parameters could interfere with personal liberty.

Railways cite passenger safety

The railways opposed the challenge, maintaining that the provision was enacted to maintain law and order and prevent untoward incidents and crimes on railway premises and trains.

Its counter affidavit referred to incidents involving women passengers being attacked and subjected to serious assaults, as well as cases involving intoxicated persons falling from trains. The railways said investigations into untoward incidents and crimes had shown that a majority of the persons involved were found to be in a state of intoxication.

The railways informed the court that a person who appeared incapable of looking after himself in a state of intoxication could initially be subjected to a breath analyser test. If found positive, he could be apprehended as being intoxicated on the face of it and later examined by a competent doctor.

The court said the initial assessment leading to removal was different from a subsequent prosecution that could result in conviction. It observed that requiring a blood test at the removal stage would be practically difficult because analysing blood could take several hours.

Railway Board circular provides safeguards

The court also considered a security circular issued by the Railway Board on September 14, 2023, which lays down guidelines for implementing Section 145(a).

“…before invoking Section 145(a), proper identification and assessment of persons suspected to be in a state of intoxication have to be based on physical observation of their appearance and behaviour, which discloses reasons to believe that the person is in a state of intoxication, and a prima facie assessment is to be made,” the court noted from the circular.

The guidelines list indicative signs including bloodshot or watery eyes, slurred speech, irrational statements, aggressive behaviour, swaying or staggering, difficulty standing, drowsiness, vomiting and the odour of alcohol or chemicals. Importantly, the circular states that the presence of only a few such signs does not necessarily mean that a person is intoxicated. A combination of signs or a visible behaviour change may lead to further examination.

The court found that the procedure laid down was sufficient to guard against arbitrary identification of intoxicated passengers. “Therefore, sufficient procedure has been laid down to avoid any arbitrariness, while identifying a person as intoxicated,” it said.

‘Arbitrary implementation’ possibility rejected

The high court rejected the argument that the possibility of arbitrary implementation made Section 145(a) itself unconstitutional. “It is a settled principle of law that the manner of implementing a provision cannot render the provision itself unconstitutional,” the court said. It added that if instances of arbitrary exercise of power arose, an aggrieved person would have a remedy before a court of law.

The court said Section 145(a) recognises the need to ensure public order, safety and the comfort of passengers inside railway carriages and on railway premises.

“A provision in the nature of Section 145(a) of the Act is a recognition of the requirement of ensuring public order and safety and the comfort of other passengers inside a railway carriage and also premises of the railway,” it said.

The court said that without such a provision, railway stations and carriages could face a “chaotic atmosphere”. It also noted that the petitioner had not himself been subjected to any arbitrary exercise of the power and had not narrated any such instance.