Privileges in Railways

Kaukab Naqvi vs. Union of India and Others

Filed under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Petitioner: Kaukab Naqvi
Respondents: Union of India &0thers
Citation: 95 (2002) Delhi Law Times 766
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judges: Manmohan Sarin

Facts

Kaukab Naqvi filed this writ petition in response to a circular/decision published by the Hindustan Times regarding the concessions made available in rail fare to certain categories of handicapped persons. Kaukab’s main grievance was that even though ‘dumb and deaf’ persons were eligible for 50% concessional fare, they had not been provided the facility of any rail concession for an attendant/escort who would accompany the passenger.

According to Kaukab this facility of concessional fare for the escort/attendant had been provided to blind patients, TB patients, mentally retarded patients, thalassamia and major disease patients as well as cardiac patients.

Kaukab’s main case was that his sister, who was dumb and deaf, was residing in Amhora, UP. She needed to come regularly to Delhi for treatment. The Chief Medical officer, Moradabad had certified that she needed an escort. Kaukab’s sister was earlier allowed to have an escort.

But according to the circular that appeared in Hindustan Times the ‘deaf and dumb’ persons were provided with 50% concession on their own tickets but no concession was provided for their escorts. Kaukab’s further grievance was that 75% concession had been given to TB patients, orthopedic handicapped persons, mentally retarded persons, thalassamia and other major disease patients but only 50% concession had been given to dumb and deaf persons.

Arguments made on behalf of Kaukab

Kaukab’s lawyer argued that the notification/circular in providing a lesser concession to the deaf and dumb was not based on any rationale. It was further contended that the decision to deny concession for an attendant was totally arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable.

Arguments made on behalf of UOI and Others

The Union of India and others filed a counter-affidavit justifying the applicability of concessions at varying rates of 75% or 50%, depending upon the nature of afflictions and disease.

It was further submitted that in regards to the concession for attendant/escort, it was provided in case of patients who could not travel without an escort/attendant on account of their disability. For such patients traveling alone would be physically difficult and fraught with risks. This however, was not the case for deaf and dumb persons.

The Senior Commercial Manager and a Doctor from the railways were directed to appear and assist the Court on measures that could be taken in order to lessen the difficulties of the deaf and dumb persons or blind or other physically handicapped persons during their travel.

The Senior Commercial Manager informed that in case prior intimation was given regarding the travel of a physically handicapped person, the staff could inform him to alight when the train reached the destination.

The lawyer on behalf of the railways also submitted that the concessional fare given by the railways to handicapped persons was out of their own funds. The Railways did not receive any reimbursement or compensation for this and there was no fixed criterion or policy regarding the application of rail concessions.

It was also submitted that losses on account of concessions in fare to different categories of persons amounted to Rs. 860 crores in 1999-2000.

The lawyer on behalf of Indian Railways also described the facilities that had been made available for handicapped persons as well as orthopedic handicapped paraplegic persons, mentally retarded, blind and completely deaf and dumb persons.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed the arguments extended by both the parties and issued the following directions to the Railways for providing additional amenities and facilities on all Railway stations/junctions for the physically handicapped persons including those who were deaf and dumb:

  1. Booths should be established in all major Railway stations/junctions having a prominent pictorial sign that indicated that assistance was available to physically handicapped persons.
  2. These booths should be manned by attendants who would provide wheel chair/trolley, stretcher etc as required.
  3. The Court also directed that at the time of issuance of concessional tickets to each physically handicapped person who was blind, deaf or dumb, the complete particulars of the passenger name, address and telephone number of contact person should be obtained.
  4. On the basis of this information provided the railway authorities would print out a card containing this information and would also mention the boarding station and destination in broad terms. This card was to be issued to the passenger.
  5. Each physically handicapped person or an otherwise sick person traveling on concessional fare would have to carry this card which would enable him/her to seek assistance from fellow passengers when needed.
  6. The Train Ticket Examiner/Guard or the concerned staff should be given a duplicate copy of this card and should be made responsible to ensure that a physically handicapped person has no difficulty in boarding or alighting from the train or during travel.

The Court disposed off the Writ Petition with these directions.

Sections Referred:

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India