Judicial restraint took centre stage as the Gauhati High Court Kavach PIL questioning railway safety systems, punctuality, and passenger amenities was dismissed for lacking enforceable legal foundations.
The Division Bench declined to entertain a public interest litigation alleging non-implementation of the Kavach automatic train protection system and deterioration of railway services, holding that such grievances were rooted in policy dissatisfaction rather than legal violations.
Examining the pleadings, the Court noted that the Gauhati High Court Kavach PIL was devoid of concrete facts, statistical data or identifiable statutory breaches. The petition relied on broad assertions without pointing to any specific derailment, accident prone stretch, safety lapse or violation of mandatory railway norms.
The Bench emphasised that public interest litigation cannot be reduced to a platform for airing general governance concerns or administrative preferences.
Courts are not designed to supervise technical execution of safety systems or evaluate comparative priorities between infrastructure expansion and maintenance.
Addressing the allegations relating to the Kavach system, the Court observed that decisions concerning deployment of advanced safety technology, allocation of financial resources and phased implementation fall squarely within the domain of specialised and technical authorities.
Judicial interference is warranted only where arbitrariness, illegality, mala fides or breach of statutory duty is clearly demonstrated.
The Court reiterated that entertaining indeterminate PILs would risk transforming constitutional courts into super regulators of policy driven departments, a course repeatedly discouraged by the Supreme Court.
Governance of a national transporter like Railways cannot be micro-managed through judicial directions issued on vague demands.
While acknowledging the obligation of Railways as a public sector undertaking to modernise infrastructure and strengthen safety mechanisms, the Bench clarified that such expectations cannot translate into enforceable directions without evidentiary backing.
Concluding the matter, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the Kavach PIL with liberty to the petitioner to pursue representations before competent authorities, provided they are supported by specific incidents, documentary material, and identifiable legal breaches.
Case Details
- Case Title: All India Railway Passengers User Facilities Federation v. Union of India and Another
- Case Number: PIL No. 65 of 2025
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
All India Railway Passengers User Facilities Federation v. Union of India and Another
