Madras high court refuses to declare sleep time restrictions in sleeper coaches of trains as unconstitutional | Chennai News


Madras high court refuses to declare sleep time restrictions in sleeper coaches of trains as unconstitutional

CHENNAI: The restriction imposed by the Indian Railways limiting sleep hours in reserved coaches of trains between 10pm and 6am, reserving the remaining time for sitting accommodation, is a reasonable nexus for ensuring convenience of all passengers, the Madras high court has said.“The restriction permits sick persons, disabled persons, and pregnant women to sleep beyond the permissible time limit and the co-passengers are requested to cooperate,” the first bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan said.The court made the observation while disposing of an appeal moved by B Balasubramanian, a resident of Chennai, challenging Paras 652(a) and 652(d) of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual Vol-I, introduced through commercial circular dated August 17, 2017, which imposes the restriction.According to the petitioner, he was a frequent traveller and was travelling with his unwell wife. Despite her illness, she was not permitted to use the sleeping berth beyond the prescribed hours.“Though certain safeguards were made in Para 652(d), when he requested the other passengers, the same was not heeded to and the safeguards made were not purposeful and, therefore, the entire restriction imposed has to be declared unconstitutional,” he said.Refusing to concur, the bench observed that only to balance the convenience of all passengers in three-tier coaches, the railway introduced time restrictions so that ticketed passengers could sit during non-sleeping hours.“The primary purpose of this restriction is to ensure that all valid ticket holders can travel comfortably without causing inconvenience to co-passengers, as passengers assigned middle and upper berths require seating space during the day,” the court said.A solitary instance, where co-passengers declined to extend sleeping hours for the appellant’s unwell wife, does not justify invalidating a rule designed to serve the broader public interest, the court added.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *