Section 143 Railways Act Can Be Invoked Against Illegal Sale Of E-Tickets: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that the mere fact that the system of e-reservation and e-tickets was introduced after the enactment of the Railways Act does not render the provision in Section 143 toothless to combat the illegal sale of e-tickets.
The Court restored the criminal proceedings under Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989 (the Act) against the Respondent, which were earlier quashed by the Kerala High Court. The Respondent, whose office was raided by the Railway Protection Force (RPF), was accused of creating multiple user IDs on the IRCTC portal to sell railway tickets without authorisation.
The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed, “IRCTC has limited the number of tickets which can be reserved on one personal user ID at 12 per month (24 per month with a user ID which is Aadhaar verified). Mathew, it is alleged, had created hundreds of fake user IDs to sell tickets without any authorisation from the railways. Although the internet and e-tickets were unknown in India when the Act was brought into force, this conduct of Mathew (who is neither a railway servant nor an authorised agent) nevertheless attracts criminality under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act.”
AOR Namit Saxena represented the Appellant, while AOR A. Raghunath appeared for the Respondents.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the whole scheme of e-ticketing was introduced for the convenience and betterment of the passenger’s experience of travelling on a train, due to which “the procurement and supply of these e-tickets, rightfully so, is highly regulated.”
The Bench stated that the High Court quashing the criminal case against Respondent on the ground that the Act was enacted before the advent of internet and etickets and the lawmakers could not have envisioned sale of tickets online, was “plainly erroneous.”
The Court referred to its decision in Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxminarayan Chopra (2012) which demonstrated that if a statutory provision is broad enough to envelop the subsequent developments, even if the developments were not envisioned by the legislature, the provision would stay operational. It was held, “The principle of these decisions is that when, after the enactment of a legislation, new facts and situations arise which could not have been in its contemplation, the statutory provisions could properly be applied to them if the words thereof are in a broad sense capable of containing them.”
Therefore, the Bench clarified that Section 143 of the Act, in plain language, prohibits any person, other than a railway servant or an authorised agent, to conduct the business of procurement and supply of railway tickets. “The provision does not specify the modalities of the procurement and supply. Hence, if we read the section and give its contents the natural and ordinary meaning, keeping in mind the objective and purpose of the legislation, as discussed above, it admits of no doubt that this provision criminalises unauthorised procurement and supply, irrespective of the mode of procurement and supply,” it explained.
“We are further of the considered opinion that the mere fact of the system of e-reservation and e-tickets being introduced after the enactment of the Act does not render the provision in Section 143 toothless to combat the illegal sale of e-tickets. Section 143, importantly, makes no distinction between physical and online sale of tickets. The mischief that the provision seeks to remedy is that there should not be illegal and unauthorised procurement and sale of tickets, whatever be the mode – physical or online. The Kerala High Court seems to have missed this aspect,” the Bench observed.
Consequently, the Court held, “To sum up, Mathew not being an authorised agent has to face the proceedings against him while Ramesh, being an authorised agent, cannot be proceeded against under Section 143 of the Act for alleged breach of any of the terms and conditions of the contract. If, at all, he would be liable to face civil action…In our view, for the foregoing reasons, the lead appeal deserves to be allowed and consequently, the criminal proceedings against Mathew need to be restored. It is ordered accordingly.”
Cause Title: Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kottayam v. Mathew K Cherian & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 51)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Namit Saxena and Amrish Kumar
Respondents: AOR A. Raghunath, Amrish Kumar and Nishe Rajen Shonker; Advocates Alim Anvar, Anu K Joy and Santhosh K
