Court affirms provision's role in maintaining public order and passenger safety, endorses Railway Board's guidelines to prevent arbitrariness
In a significant judgment dated July 29, 2026, the Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 145(a) of the Railways Act, 1989. The petitioner, K.N. Shastry, Managing Director of a tourism company, had argued that the provision was unconstitutional for lacking a precise definition of "state of intoxication" and for granting arbitrary powers to the Railway Protection Force (RPF) to remove passengers from railway premises or trains.
The Court, presided over by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, held that Section 145(a) is a valid legislative measure aimed at ensuring public order, passenger safety, and comfort within railway carriages and premises. The provision empowers railway servants to remove persons found in a state of intoxication, who commit nuisance, indecency, or interfere with passenger amenities, subject to legal consequences including imprisonment and fines.
Addressing concerns about arbitrariness and vagueness, the Court noted that the Railway Board had issued detailed guidelines via Security Circular No. 02/2023. These guidelines establish clear procedures for identifying intoxicated individuals through a combination of physical observation, behavioral signs, and breath analysis. The circular lists 46 indicative signs under appearance, behavior, speech, and attitude categories to aid RPF personnel in making prima facie assessments, thereby mitigating the risk of arbitrary action.
The judgment clarified that initial removal from premises is based on reasonable assessment rather than immediate medical or blood tests, which are impractical at the site. It further underscored that procedural safeguards are in place, including verbal intervention, assistance to the passenger, escalation protocols, and a strict emphasis on professionalism and empathy by RPF personnel.
Rejecting the petitioner's apprehension that the law infringes fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, the Court emphasized that the mere possibility of misuse does not render a law unconstitutional. Remedies are available through judicial review if arbitrary exercise of power occurs in practice.
The Court highlighted the necessity of such a provision in the context of railway travel, where the safety and comfort of numerous passengers must be balanced against individual liberties. It cited incidents involving assaults and crimes linked to intoxicated persons to justify the stringent measures.
Ultimately, the Kerala High Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 145(a) of the Railways Act, affirming it as a reasonable restriction in the interest of public safety and order within railway premises. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Bottom Line:
Constitutionality of Section 145(a) of the Railways Act, 1989 upheld - Provision aimed at ensuring public order, passenger safety, and comfort in railway premises and trains. Implementation safeguards provided by Railway Board's guidelines eliminate arbitrariness.
Statutory provision(s): Railways Act, 1989 Section 145(a), Constitution of India Articles 14, 19, 21
K.N. Shastry v. Union of India, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971260
