Court rules Indian Railway Commercial Manual Vol-I Paras 652(a) and 652(d) valid, emphasizing balance between passenger convenience and protections for sick, disabled, and pregnant travelers.
In a significant judgment delivered on October 28, 2026, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, upheld the constitutional validity of Paras 652(a) and 652(d) of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual Vol-I. The judgment came on an intra-court appeal filed by S. Balasubramanian challenging the restriction imposed by Para 652(a) which limits the use of sleeping berths in reserved coaches to the hours between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM.
The appellant, a frequent railway traveler, contended that his unwell wife was denied permission to use the sleeping berth beyond the prescribed hours, causing her undue hardship. He further argued that the safeguard provision in Para 652(d), which requests co-passengers to cooperate with sick persons, persons with disabilities, and pregnant women who may need to sleep beyond the restricted hours, was ineffective in practice.
The Court, after careful consideration, noted that Para 652(a) was introduced to balance the convenience of all passengers, particularly in three-tier coaches where seating space during the day is essential for ticketed passengers assigned to middle and upper berths. The rule ensures that sleeping accommodation is confined to night hours while allowing sitting accommodation during the day, thus maintaining comfort and order in the coaches.
Addressing the appellant's concerns, the Court highlighted Para 652(d), which explicitly requests co-passengers to cooperate with vulnerable passengers who require sleeping accommodations beyond the stipulated hours. The Court emphasized that this safeguard is a reasonable and thoughtful provision catering to the needs of sick persons, persons with disabilities, and pregnant women.
Crucially, the Court held that a solitary instance of non-cooperation by co-passengers does not render the rule unconstitutional. It further observed that the appellant could have sought assistance from onboard railway staff, the Railway Protection Force, or officials at the next station to enforce the safeguards provided under Para 652(d), but chose not to. The Court found the challenge to the rule baseless and dismissed the writ petition, affirming the validity of the provisions.
The Court also clarified the responsibilities of railway officials in ensuring that the safeguards under Para 652(d) are properly enforced and encouraged passengers facing difficulties to report such issues to railway authorities.
This judgment reaffirms the Indian Railways' approach to regulating sleeping accommodations in reserved coaches by balancing the rights and conveniences of all passengers while providing reasonable concessions to vulnerable groups.
Bottom Line:
Indian Railway Commercial Manual Vol-I, Para 652(a) restricting sleeping accommodation in reserved coaches between 2200 and 0600 hours is valid and has reasonable nexus with convenience of all passengers. Para 652(d) providing concession to sick persons, persons with disabilities and pregnant women is a safeguard, and a solitary instance of non-cooperation by co-passengers does not render the rule unconstitutional.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Railway Commercial Manual Vol-I Paras 652(a), 652(d)
S. Balasubramanian v. Union of India, (Madras)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3006969
