Railways Liable To Pay Compensation For Gang Rape Which Occurred Inside Train Compartment: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court was considering a Petition challenging the orders of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
While directing the release of the compensation amount in favour of a gang rape survivor, the Delhi High Court has held that the Railways would be liable to pay compensation towards the untoward incident of gang rape which occurred inside a train compartment.
The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
The Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal held, “The fact of the matter is that the victim was a bona fide passenger who had purchased a ticket for the journey and was travelling in the train when the said incident occurred. The Railways were obliged to provide a safe environment onboard the compartment of the train. Since the unfortunate incident occurred inside a compartment of a train, the same would be covered under the definition of an “untoward incident” as provided in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act and the Railways would be liable to pay compensation in terms of Section 124A of the Railways Act.”
“Consequently, the recommendation made by NHRC directing payment of compensation cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or manifest illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”, it added.
Central Govt Standing Counsel Arunima Dwivedi represented the Petitioner while Advocate Kaoliangpou Kamei represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The proceedings before the NHRC arose from a complaint filed by the father of the victim of a gang rape case which took place in 2012 inside a bogie of a passenger train at Railway Platform at Lakheesarai, Bihar. Upon considering the complaint and the reports received from the authorities, the NHRC noted that the Chairman, Railway Board had to pay a sum of Rs 3 lakh to the victim and reiterated the said direction through subsequent communications.
A representation was filed on behalf of the Railways, raising an objection that compensation under the Railways Act could only be determined by the Railway Claims Tribunal and that the NHRC lacked jurisdiction. The said representation was rejected, and the Railways were directed to make the payment of compensation. It was in such circumstances that the appeal came to be filed before the High Court.
Reasoning
Referring to the term ‘untoward incident’ defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, the Bench explained that this term includes an incident which has occurred on a train carrying passengers or in a waiting hall or cloak room or booking office or on any platform or any other place in the railway station. The Bench rejected the objection taken by the Railways that the incident occurred not in a moving train but when the train was at the station at a platform.
“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”, it stated while also adding, “Therefore, even if the gang rape was committed by private individuals who were not railway employees, it would not affect the liability of the Railways to pay compensation.”
Highlighting the fact that the NHRC is a statutory body established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, with a mandate of better protection of human rights and for matters connected therewith, the Bench explained, “Though the recommendations made by the Commission under Section 18 of the Act are recommendatory, they cannot be treated as mere opinions. Being the outcome of a statutory inquiry conducted by an expert statutory body entrusted with the protection of human rights, such recommendations command persuasive value.”
Holding that the NHRC had correctly exercised its jurisdiction in recommending immediate monetary relief to a victim of gross human rights violation, and no ground was made out to interfere with the impugned orders, the Bench dismissed the writ petition. The Bench further asked the Registry to release the aforesaid amount for compensation in favour of the respondent along with the accrued interest.
Cause Title: Ministry of Railway v. National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) And Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:6246)
Appearance
Petitioner: Central Govt Standing Counsel Arunima Dwivedi, Advocate Himanshi Singh
Respondent: Advocates Kaoliangpou Kamei, Sunil Kanti