General governance can’t be done via judicial orders: Gauhati High Court junks PIL over incomplete roll out of ‘Kavach’

The court also noted that the policy matters relating to railway safety protocols, technical deployment of “Kavach” system, allocations of resources, prioritisation of expansion versus maintenance and strategic rollout of various safety measures fall within the domain of special/technical authorities.

The petitioner had alleged that Railways failed to maintain punctuality, safety standards, amenities and service quality.

It was further alleged that the advanced “Kavach”, an automatic train protection system, has not been fully rolled out and that the Railways are prioritising expansion over maintenance, thereby enhancing the risk of derailment and exposing the vulnerable commuters to accident.

At the outset the court noted that the petition is bereft of any concrete material particulars or data.

“Except for bald statements and general assertions, the writ petition does not refer to any specific incident of derailment/accident, identified safety lapse, particularly in any stretch of track, or any statutory violation which would justify exercise of this Court’s extra-ordinary jurisdiction,” the court said.

The court observed that there was no averment regarding breach of any statutory rule or any material to show that the Railways ignored the binding directions for improvement of service or to supervise day-to-day administrations.

The court held that entertaining such petitions would convert the court into a super-regulatory authority of technical policy.

“On going through this petition, we find that the grievances are more in the nature of general policy suggestion and not of enforceable legal rights,” it added.

The court however said that the railways being a public sector undertaking are expected to continue upgrading safety systems, modernising infrastructure and deploying protection technology as per expert’s assessment and budgetary prioritisation.

While dismissing the PIL, the court allowed the petitioner to approach the competent authority.

“For all these reasons, we dismiss this petition with the liberty to the petitioner to pursue the already filed representation or, if not filed, fresh representations before the competent authority, if so advised, with specific instances, documentary materials and identifiable legal violations,” the court held.