The Delhi High Court has upheld the National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC) recommendation directing the Ministry of Railways to pay ₹3 lakh compensation to a gang rape survivor, holding that the Railways cannot escape liability merely because the offence was committed by private individuals and not railway employees.
Justice Amit Bansal dismissed a writ petition filed by the Ministry of Railways challenging the NHRC’s orders dated April 30, 2014 and April 19, 2016, which had recommended compensation to a woman who was gang raped inside a passenger train stationed at Lakheesarai railway station in Bihar in August 2012. The Court directed that the amount deposited before it by the Railways, along with accrued interest, be released to the survivor within two weeks.
The Railways argued that the incident occurred while the train was stationary at a platform, that law and order at the station was the responsibility of the Government Railway Police under the State Government, and that the offence was committed by private individuals who had already been convicted. It further contended that the incident did not qualify as an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989, and that the NHRC lacked jurisdiction to award compensation.
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court held that Section 123(c) of the Railways Act expressly includes violent attacks occurring on a passenger train, railway platform or other areas within railway premises within the definition of an “untoward incident.” The Court observed that gang rape is undoubtedly a violent attack and therefore falls squarely within the statutory definition.
The Court further held that under Section 124A of the Railways Act, the Railway Administration is liable to compensate passengers injured in an untoward incident irrespective of whether there was any wrongful act, negligence or default on its part. It noted that the survivor was a bona fide passenger travelling with a valid ticket and that the Railways had an obligation to provide a safe environment inside the train compartment. Consequently, the involvement of private offenders did not absolve the Railways of its statutory liability.
On the challenge to the NHRC’s jurisdiction, the Court reiterated that although recommendations issued under the Protection of Human Rights Act are recommendatory in form, they are the outcome of statutory inquiries conducted by an expert body and carry significant persuasive value. Relying on the Delhi High Court’s earlier decision in Kiran Singh v. National Human Rights Commission, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 430, the Court observed that treating NHRC recommendations as non-binding would render the Commission a “toothless tiger” and defeat the object of human rights protection.
Finding no jurisdictional error, perversity or illegality in the NHRC’s recommendation, the Court dismissed the Railways’ petition, vacated the interim stay granted in 2016 and directed the Registry to release the deposited compensation amount along with accrued interest to the survivor within two weeks.
