Page 1

UNION OF INDIA & ORS v.

J.D. SURYAVANSHI (Civil Appeal No. 7658 of 2011)

SEPTEMBER 5, 2011 [R.V.  Raveendran and A. K. Patnaik, JJ.]

[2011] 11 SCR 158

The Order of the Court was delivered by

O R D E R

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent, a practicing lawyer, filed a public interest litigation in the year 2009 in  

the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) praying for issue of the following directions  

to the Railway administration (Western Railway, West Central Railway and North Central  

Railway) :  

(i) the additional berths from Three Tier Sleeper & AC Class Coaches in all trains;  

(ii) to complete the second track between Gwalior and Indore; and submit a progress  

report to court in respect of the work done in the last 25 years;

(iii) to reschedule the train timings of Bhind –  Indore Intercity Express (Train  

No.9319/9320) and Gwalior-Indore Express (Train No.1125/1126) taking into  

account various factors and not to stop the train at Parihar and Laxmibai Nagar;

(iv) to fill all vacant posts of coolies in all stations to avoid discomfort to passengers;  

(v) to introduce additional 3 tier sleeper coaches in all trains between Gwalior and  

Indore;  

(vi) to introduce additional coaches (AC-I & AC-III) in Dehradun Express, additional  

coaches (AC I and AC-II tier) in Bhind-Indore Intercity Express and Gwalior-Indore  

Expresses (Train No.9319, 9320, 1125 & 1126);

(vii) to extend train route of Ujjain-Dehradun Express (Train No.4309 and 4310) upto  

Indore;  

(viii) to re-schedule the timings of Intercity Express and Dehradun Express to enable  

more passengers can use them and;

Page 2

(ix) to extend the route of Shuttle Express (Gwalior-Guna-Gwalior) and Indore-Maksi-

Indore upto Indore and Gwalior respectively during day time.

3. The High Court passed a series of interim orders in the said case, in compliance of  

which, Railways made changes in the timings of several trains. They also added AC-II  

coaches, AC-I coaches, composite (AC-III cum AC-II) coaches to several trains. In some  

cases, the Railway Administration informed the court that the demand for further  

trains/coaches will not be feasible or could not be met, either due to technical reasons or lack  

of full capacity utilization in regard to existing trains/coaches. They also pointed out that certain  

seasonal increase in passenger traffic like summer vacations, cannot be a ground for  

permanent or throughout the year addition of new trains or addition of new coaches.  

4. But the High Court was not satisfied. It got into details of railway administration and  

train schedule management, which were totally alien to judicial review, and beyond judicially  

manageable standards. We extract below a typical interim order passed on 17.12.2009:

“It is reported to us that the Intercity Express though has some berths to accommodate  

the passengers who propose to travel in II AC but the bogie is made in two parts half of it  

is reserved for II AC while the other half is being utilized by the passengers traveling in III  

AC.  

Learned counsel for the respondents pray for time to seek instructions in the matter.

Let the General Manger (Traffic), Railways file his personal affidavit in the matter as to  

why such a bogie has been provided and what problem would be faced by the Railway  

Administration if instead of half boogie II AC a full boogie II AC is provided.”

5. By the impugned interim order dated 5.7.2010, the High Court directed the Railways to  

provide a Full AC-II coach in the Intercity Express. The High Court further directed the  

Railways to consider and introduce AC-I coach in the Intercity Express. While issuing the said  

direction the High Court observed: “Needless to say the Benches of this prestigious High Court  

are smoothly functioning at both the cities viz. Gwalior and Indore”  thereby implying that the  

AC-I coach was necessary in the Intercity Express because the High Court has Benches at  

Gwalior and Indore. The High Court also directed the impleadment of Army Regiments and  

Border Security Forces to the PIL. It further directed the learned counsel for the Union of India  

to submit in writing how many officers of Central Government, Armed Forces and Border  

Security Forces are required to travel from Gwalior to Indore and back. For alleged  

disobedience of one of the interim orders, a contempt petition (No.178/2009) was also filed  

against the Railway which appears to be pending.  

6. Feeling aggrieved the Railways have filed this petition contending as follows:

Page 3

(i) High Court has no jurisdiction to direct either the addition or deletion of coaches on  

any particular train, or to direct the change of frequencies or timings of a particular  

train.  

(ii) Any directions for providing additional coaches where the trains were already  

running with its normal load of 15 coaches would causes several technical  

problems, coach shortages in other trains, complications, safety violations etc.  

(iii) The High Court was not justified in directing the Railways to attach a full AC-II tier  

& AC-I, coaches in the Gwalior Indore Express 1125/1126.

7. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Nagesh - 2002 (7) SCC 603,  

dealing with similar directions regarding Railways by the said High Court, had set aside a  

decision of the High Court directing the central government to reschedule the timings of the  

Awantika Super Fast Express. This Court held:

“After we heard the matter, we are of the view that such a direction could not have been  

issued by the High Court to the appellants herein in a petition under Article 226 of the  

Constitution. What would be the scheduled timings for a train for its departure and arrival  

is an administrative decision keeping in view the larger public interest or public  

convenience and not the convenience of the public of a particular town. Such a decision is  

within the exclusive administrative domain of the Railways and is not liable to be  

interfered with in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

(Emphasis supplied)

In spite of the said decision rendered in regard to the similar earlier orders of the said  

High Court, the Division Bench of the High Court has chosen to indulge in a similar exercise in  

this case.

8. Railway administration is a specialized field. It has to cater to the needs of the entire  

country. It has limited resources and limited number of railway engines and railway coaches,  

particularly AC coaches, more particularly AC-I class coaches. Railway will have to distribute  

and utilize the available resources and the available Rolling Stock equitably, uniformly, and  

appropriately to serve all the sections of the country. It is possible that in a particular section  

there may be hardship, inconveniences and need for introduction of more trains, better  

timings, and better facilities. But one sector is not India. We shudder to think what would  

happen if every High Court starts giving directions to the Railway to provide additional trains,  

additional coaches and change timings wherever they feel that there is a shortage of trains or  

need for better timings. Even in the State of Madhya Pradesh, we are sure that apart from  

Gwalior-Indore sector, there are other sectors which may be facing similar hardships and  

problems. The Railway does not exist to cater to a particular sector. It is for the Railway

Page 4

administration to decide where, how and when trains or coaches should be added or the  

timings should be changed. The Courts do not have data inputs, specialized knowledge or the  

technical skills required for running the Railways. The High Court cannot interfere in regard to  

only one sector without having any material or information about the requirements of other  

sectors available infrastructure, existing demands and constraints, safety requirements etc.  

Nor can the High Court direct introduction of trains or additional coaches of a particular  

category or direct change in timings of a train. Changing the timing of a train is not a simple  

process, but requires co-ordinated efforts, as it would affect the timings of other trains. There  

are also different types of trains - express trains, superfast trains, passenger trains, goods  

trains, with different speeds and priorities. Any attempt to pick and choose one train or one  

sector for improving the functioning will led to chaos involving technical snags and safety  

problems.  

9. In Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India & Ors. [2002 (2) SCC 333], this  

Court held :

“Judicial interference by way of PIL is available if there is injury to public because of  

dereliction of constitutional or statutory obligations on the part of the Government. Here it  

is not so and in the sphere of economic policy or reform the court is not the appropriate  

forum. Every matter of public interest or curiosity cannot be the subject-matter of PIL.  

Courts are not intended to and nor should they conduct the administration of the country.  

Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions  

or non-compliance by the State with its constitutional or statutory duties. None of these  

contingencies arise in this present case.”

(Emphasis supplied)

In Federation of Railway Officers Association vs. Union of India [2003 (4) SCC 289] this Court  

was considering a challenge to the government’s proposal to form new railway zones. The  

appellant therein placed some material to demonstrate that formation of new railway zones  

may not increase the efficiency of railway administration. This Court refused to interfere and  

observes :

“Even otherwise, to meet the demands of backward areas  cannot by itself be inconsistent  

with efficiency. When the Railways  is a public utility service, it has to take care of all  

areas including backward areas. In doing so, providing service, efficient supervision and  

keeping the equipment and other material in good and workable condition are all  

important factors….

Further, when technical questions arise and experts in the field have expressed various  

views and all those aspects have been taken into consideration by the Government in

Page 5

deciding the matter, could it still be said that this Court should re-examine to interfere with  

the same? The wholesome rule in regard to judicial interference in administrative  

decisions is that if the Government takes into consideration all relevant factors, eschews  

from considering irrelevant factors and acts reasonably within the parameters of the law,  

courts would keep off the same.”

In Directorate of Film Festivals vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain [2007 (4) SCC 737], this Court  

held :

“The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not  

and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and  

appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy  

which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining  

a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the  

citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory  

provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground  

that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available.  

Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of  

judicial review”.    

The following observations of House of Lords setting the limits of judicial review in Chief  

Constable of the North Wales Police vs. Evans 1982 (2) All ER 141, can be usefully referred :

“The function of the court is to see that lawful authority is not abused by unfair treatment  

and not to attempt itself the task entrusted to that authority by the law… The purpose of  

judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure  

that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorized  

by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court.”

“Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the  

manner in which the decision was made. ….. Judicial review is concerned, not with the  

decision, but with the decision-making process. Unless that restriction on the power of the  

court is observed, the court will in my view, under the guise of preventing the abuse of  

power, be itself guilty of usurping power.”

This court has repeatedly warned that courts should resist the temptation to usurp the  

power of the Executive by entering into arenas which are exclusively within the domain of the  

executive.  

10. How many coaches should be attached, what types of coaches are to be attached, on  

which lines what trains should run, what should be their timings and frequency, are all matters  

to be decided by the Railway administration using technical inputs, depending upon financial,

Page 6

administrative, social and other considerations. This Court has repeatedly held that courts  

should not interfere in matters of policy or in the day-to-day functioning of any departments of  

governments or statutory bodies. Even within the executive, the need for separation of roles  

has been voiced. We may usefully refer to the following observation in the Rakesh Mohan  

Committee Report (1998) made in a different context :

“With regard to institutional separation of roles, into policy, regulatory and management  

functions, these roles are currently blurred, which causes confusion about the underlying  

vision and mission of Indian Railway. The institutional separation of roles will mean that  

policy makers are limited to setting policy; regulators fix competition rules in general and  

pricing in particular; management manages and is measured against clear performance  

indicators.”   

11. The record of the case shows that Railway had made all efforts to comply with the  

requirements/earlier directions of the High Court. Courtesies extended by Railways should not  

be taken as readiness to comply with impractical suggestions and unreasonable directions.  

The malaise of interference in the functioning of Railway administration is a matter of concern.  

Courts, bureaucracy and political leaders should give up the tendency to compel or pressurize  

the Railway administration to cater to only parts of the country particularly to the State or area  

to which they belong. Any such attempt to promote only regional interests would affect the  

national interest. The Railways should have the freedom and independence to grow, develop,  

improve and serve the nation. Be that as it may.  

12. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned interim order dated  

5.7.2010 of the High Court is set aside. In the light of what is stated above, we request the  

High Court to dispose of the writ petition itself without any further directions of similar  

nature.