Why excess tickets sold? HC raps Rlys on Delhi stampede

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned the Railways for selling tickets beyond the capacity of train coaches on February 15, which led to a massive rush and a deadly stampede at New Delhi railway station. The court also issued notices to the Union Government, the Railways and the Railway Board, seeking their response on safety measures to prevent such tragedies in the future.

Advertisement

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, hearing a PIL filed by Arth Vidhi, an organisation of legal and business professionals, strongly criticised the Railways for overselling tickets. “If there’s a fixed limit on the number of passengers per coach, why are ticket sales exceeding that limit? This is a fundamental issue,” the court remarked.

The stampede claimed the lives of 18 persons, including nine women and four children, and left over a dozen injured. The incident occurred due to an overwhelming surge of passengers, primarily devotees heading to the Maha Kumbh in Uttar Pradesh. The court has scheduled the next hearing for March 26.

Notably, on the evening of the incident, between 6 pm and 8 pm, nearly 10,000 unreserved tickets were sold —approximately 2,500 more than usual. This spike, driven by the influx of Kumbh devotees, caused severe overcrowding on two platforms, culminating in the catastrophic stampede.

The Bench cited Section 57 of the Railways Act, which mandates that each coach must have a fixed maximum capacity, and highlighted that this provision was being ignored. “Strict adherence to this rule could have averted this disaster. During peak times, the Railways can make adjustments, but there must be a limit,” the court said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Railways, acknowledged the gravity of the issue and assured the court that the matter would be thoroughly examined. “The law already exists, and we are bound by it. No additional directives are needed for us to fulfil our obligations,” he stated.

Regarding the demand for a more structured system for unreserved tickets, Mehta said guidelines had been issued but admitted to challenges specific to the country’s context. “Certain sections, particularly those from economically weaker backgrounds, tend to gather in large numbers. We do face unprecedented situations during rush hours, but Railway Board will address the concerns,” he said.

On compensation for the victims’ families, Mehta said it had already been disbursed but acknowledged that no monetary relief could truly compensate for the loss of lives. “We recognise the tragedy. But implementing new regulations or infrastructure changes requires time and practical considerations,” he said.

Chief Justice Upadhyay noted the PIL raised valid concerns and emphasised the petitioner’s argument was not limited to this single incident but aimed at ensuring such disasters do not recur due to non-compliance with existing rules. “There should be no resistance to these demands,” he asserted.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the court directed the Railway Board to submit a detailed affidavit outlining the measures it plans to implement to prevent similar tragedies in the future. “You must take action, but those actions should be adequate,” the court remarked, seeking a formal response.