Sanchayita Lahkar

The Gauhati High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury dismissed a public interest petition filed by a railway passengers’ users federation against the Union government and the Railway Board, which alleged failures in punctuality, safety standards, amenities and service quality, and claimed that the “Kavach” automatic train protection system had not been fully rolled out while expansion was being prioritised over maintenance, increasing derailment risk. The Bench found the plea was unsupported by concrete material particulars or specific instances, treated it as general policy suggestions rather than enforceable legal rights, and granted liberty to pursue existing or fresh representations before the competent authority with supporting material.

A public interest litigation was filed by a railway passengers’ users facilities federation against the Union of India, through the Railway Ministry, and the Chairman, Railway Board. The petition alleged failures by the Railways in punctuality, safety standards, amenities and service quality, and raised concerns about the rollout of the “Kavach” automatic train protection system and prioritisation of expansion over maintenance.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Trial Courts To Standardise Witness And Evidence Cataloguing In Criminal Judgments, Allows Appeal And Acquits POCSO-Accused Over Evidence Lapses

The judgment records that the petition did not provide concrete material particulars or data, did not cite any specific derailment/accident or identified safety lapse in any stretch of track, and did not point to any statutory violation or breach of a statutory rule, or material showing inaction in the face of a specific statutory duty.

The Court observed, "At the outset, we note that the petition is bereft of any concrete material particulars or data." It stated, "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 Bench recorded, "Public interest litigation is a serious instrument which cannot be founded on sweeping allegations, perceived administrative emergencies, or general grievances about systemic functioning." It stated, "The Courts must guard against vague and omnibus petitions filed without adequate research or factual foundation."

On the subject-matter raised, the Court stated, "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 squarely within the domain of special/technical Authorities."

It stated, "The Courts do not substitute their wisdom for that of competent experts, unless there is a demonstrable arbitrariness, illegality, mala fides and inaction in the face of specific statutory duty."

The Bench recorded, "In this petition, there is no averment regarding breach of any statutory rule or any material to show that the Railways have ignored the binding directions for improvement of service or to supervise day-to-day administrations." It stated, "Entertaining such petitions would convert this Court into a kind of super-regulatory authority of technical policy; something which has expressly been cautioned against in many cases of the Supreme Court."

The Court stated, "General governance of a department is not to be carried out through judicial orders on vague demands." It recorded, "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."

Also Read: Section 18 MSMED Act Overrides GeM Arbitration Clause Once MSME Facilitation Council’s Jurisdiction Is Invoked; Gauhati High Court

The Bench stated, "The Railways being a public sector undertaking are nevertheless expected to continue upgrading safety systems, modernising infrastructure and deploying protection technology as per expert’s assessment and budgetary prioritisation."

It stated, "However, such matters cannot be directed on the basis of an indeterminate/non-evidentiary PIL."

The Court directed: "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. No order as to costs."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. M.R. Sodial, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, DSGI

Case Title: ALL INDIA RAILWAY PASSENGERS USER FACILITIES FEDERATION VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
Neutral Citation: GAHC010269182025
Case Number: PIL/65/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar, Justice Arun Dev Choudhury