The Supreme Court has called on the Indian Railways to take stronger and more practical steps to tackle overcrowding on trains, warning that packed coaches have repeatedly resulted in passengers falling from moving trains and losing their lives.
The Court also suggested that the Railways reconsider the phrase “second class passenger” used in its official manuals, saying that any classification should apply to the coach and not to the individual travelling in it.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh made the observations while ruling in favour of the widow of a man who died after falling from a moving train in 2015. The Court ordered the Railways to pay her ₹8 lakh in compensation.
The Bench said deaths caused by passengers falling from overcrowded trains were far from being isolated events. While such incidents might appear statistically small against the scale of the Railways’ nationwide operations, the Court noted that each death leaves behind a devastating impact on the affected family.
The judgment referred to several recent incidents linked to overcrowding, including the deaths of four commuters who fell from overcrowded Mumbai suburban trains in June 2025 and the stampede at New Delhi railway station during the rush linked to the Maha Kumbh. The Court said such incidents highlighted the continuing dangers posed by overcrowded railway facilities.
The Bench also examined the provisions of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual, which already contains directions for railway officials to prevent excessive crowding, distribute passengers across coaches, alert stations in advance when trains become overcrowded and arrange additional coaches where necessary.
However, the Court observed that the gap between the rules and their implementation remained a serious concern.
“The forethought is clearly visible, but the execution leaves much to be desired,” the Bench observed.
It further noted that effective implementation of the existing safeguards would require more personnel and suggested that the Railways consider creating greater employment opportunities for young people.
The Court said such recruitment could serve a dual purpose by providing stable employment while also strengthening safety measures aimed at protecting passengers.
At the same time, the Bench made it clear that passenger conduct could not be ignored. It said responsibility for safety could not be placed entirely on the Railways, noting that passengers too must avoid taking dangerous risks when trains are overcrowded.
“Sometimes practical considerations must give way to the preservation of life,” the Court observed.
The Bench also questioned the terminology used in railway documents to describe travellers as “second class passengers”. It said that while the expression may refer to the fare paid for a journey, attaching a class identity to the passenger was inconsistent with the constitutional values of equality.
The Court suggested that the classification should instead be associated with the coach.
Turning to the compensation dispute, the Supreme Court held that the absence of the deceased’s ticket could not, by itself, be used to reject a genuine claim.
The man’s widow had consistently maintained that he had been carrying the ticket in his travel bag, which was lost after the accident. The Court said the Railway Claims Tribunal and the Madhya Pradesh High Court had erred in treating the missing ticket as decisive evidence against the claim.
The Bench reiterated that Section 124A of the Railways Act creates a beneficial no-fault liability framework. It held that the claimant had met the initial requirement by filing an affidavit stating that the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket.
The Court said the loss of the ticket in the accident could not automatically erase the deceased’s status as a bona fide passenger.
It therefore set aside the earlier orders rejecting the compensation claim and directed the Railways to pay ₹8 lakh within four weeks. If the amount is not paid within that period, it will carry interest at 8% from the date on which the claim petition was filed.