The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought responses from the Union government, Indian Railways, and the Railway Board regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PI that calls for enhanced safety measures to prevent stampedes like the recent incident at New Delhi Railway Station (NDLS).

During the hearing, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela questioned the Railways' practice of selling tickets beyond the capacity of train coaches.

"If the number of passengers per coach is fixed, why are more tickets sold than the available capacity? That is the problem," the Court observed.

The Bench referred to Section 57 of the Railways Act, which mandates the administration to set a maximum limit on the number of passengers per compartment. The Court emphasized that strict implementation of this provision could prevent such incidents, suggesting that the number could be adjusted based on rush periods but should not be ignored entirely.

The petition, filed by the organization Arth Vidhi through advocate Aditya Trivedi, highlighted mismanagement and negligence, attributing the February 15 stampede, which claimed at least 18 lives, to a failure in administration. The overcrowding resulted from a surge in passengers traveling for the ongoing Maha Kumbh in Uttar Pradesh.

Justice Gedela noted that subsequent measures had been taken to manage crowding but questioned whether infrastructural limitations made absolute control impossible. However, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the Railways had failed to enforce existing rules, such as requiring platform tickets, and lacked mechanisms to track unreserved passengers.

Chief Justice Upadhyay acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns, stating that the issue extended beyond the specific incident and revolved around the Railways' failure to adhere to its own regulations. He indicated that there should be no opposition to the PIL since it merely sought proper implementation of existing rules.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Indian Railways, clarified that the Railways did not oppose the petition and was bound by the law. He assured the Court that the Railway Board would examine the issues raised. Addressing the petitioner’s request for guidelines on general class ticket issuance, Mehta noted that a circular had already been issued, though challenges remained due to unanticipated rush-hour crowds.

On the issue of compensation, Mehta confirmed that ex gratia payments had already been made but acknowledged that no amount could truly compensate for the loss of lives. He assured the Court that the Railway Board would review the highlighted concerns.

The Court, while seeking a response from the authorities, remarked that action had been taken but perhaps remained inadequate. It directed the respondents to file a short affidavit detailing the steps planned for implementation.

In its order, the Court emphasized the significance of proper enforcement of statutory provisions and instructed the Railway Board to examine the matter at the highest level before submitting a detailed response. The case is scheduled for further hearing on March 26.