By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
In public administration, words are never merely descriptive. The language used by the State shapes public perception, reflects institutional values and often reveals how government views the people it serves. A seemingly routine administrative phrase can carry profound constitutional implications.
That insight lies at the heart of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Lata vs Union of India & Anr, where a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh transformed what began as a railway compensation dispute into a wider affirmation of equality, dignity and constitutional morality.
The immediate issue before the Court concerned compensation for a railway accident. But the judgment went much further. While reaffirming the Railways’ statutory liability to compensate the family of a deceased passenger, the bench also questioned a phrase embedded for decades in railway manuals and ticketing systems—“second-class passenger”.
Its conclusion was simple yet profound: coaches may be classified; citizens may not.
A TRAGEDY ON THE TRACKS
The case arose from the death of Chandrakant Thakkar, who boarded the Ahmedabad-Howrah Mail in 2015 while travelling from Raipur to Ahmedabad for business.
Like countless passengers across India’s overcrowded railway network, he found himself in a packed compartment. During the journey, he fell from the moving train and suffered fatal injuries.
Police recovered his wallet and identified him through contact details found inside. But the travel bag containing his railway ticket disappeared in the chaos of the accident.
His widow, Lata, subsequently approached the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking statutory compensation. She filed a sworn affidavit stating that her husband had purchased a valid ticket before boarding and that it had been lost along with his luggage.
The claim was nevertheless rejected. Both the Railway Claims Tribunal and, later, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that because the physical ticket had not been recovered, the deceased could not be treated as a bona fide passenger.
RESTORING THE SPIRIT OF THE RAILWAYS ACT
The Supreme Court decisively rejected that reasoning. Invoking Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the bench reiterated that Parliament deliberately created a regime of strict no-fault liability for railway accidents.
Once an untoward incident results in death or injury, compensation follows unless the Railways establish one of the narrowly defined statutory exceptions—such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, criminal conduct, intoxication, insanity or death caused by natural illness.
The Court emphasized that beneficial legislation cannot be frustrated through technical evidentiary requirements.
Drawing upon its earlier decision in Union of India vs Rina Devi (2019), the bench reaffirmed that the absence of a recovered ticket does not automatically prove ticketless travel.
Where a claimant files a sworn affidavit explaining that the ticket was lost during the accident, the initial burden stands discharged. The responsibility then shifts to the Railways to demonstrate otherwise.
Importantly, these proceedings are governed not by the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but by the civil test of the preponderance of probabilities.
In this case, the Railways produced no evidence to rebut the widow’s affidavit.
Had railway personnel properly maintained operational records, the Court observed, they might have been able to establish whether the deceased had travelled without authorization.
They did not.
Accordingly, the Court awarded Rs 8 lakh in statutory compensation, directing that the amount be transferred directly to the widow within four weeks, failing which interest at eight percent per annum would accrue from the date of the original claim petition.
WHEN LANGUAGE OFFENDS EQUALITY
The most enduring contribution of the judgment, however, lies beyond compensation. Justice Karol turned the Court’s attention to the language employed in official railway manuals and ticketing systems.
For decades, passengers travelling in ordinary compartments have routinely been described as “second-class passengers”. The Court found this terminology constitutionally troubling.
Service categories are inevitable in any large transport system. Different fares, seating arrangements and levels of comfort reflect differing economic choices. But those classifications should describe the coach, not the citizen.
A traveller may occupy a “general class coach” or a “second-tier compartment”. The State, however, should never describe that individual as a “second-class passenger”.
The distinction may appear semantic, yet the Court viewed it as an important expression of constitutional values.
Articles 14 and 21 guarantee equality before law and the right to live with dignity. Administrative language that subtly suggests varying degrees of citizenship based upon purchasing power is inconsistent with those guarantees.
Replacing such terminology costs virtually nothing administratively, the bench observed, yet carries immense symbolic value.
Government language must affirm equal dignity—not reinforce invisible hierarchies.
FROM SYMBOLISM TO SAFETY
The Court also addressed the recurring tragedy of overcrowded trains. Fatal falls from overcrowded coaches, it observed, have become distressingly common across India’s railway system. Referring to recurring suburban rail fatalities in Mumbai and the deadly crowd crush during the Maha Kumbh rush at New Delhi Railway Station, the bench underscored that overcrowding remains a systemic public safety challenge.
Ironically, the Indian Railway Commercial Manual already contains detailed safety provisions. Station masters, guards, conductors and travelling ticket examiners possess authority to regulate crowds, prevent dangerous boarding, monitor coach capacity and seek additional coaches whenever passenger volumes exceed safe limits.
The problem, the Court noted, is not the absence of rules, but the failure to implement them. “The forethought is clearly visible,” the bench observed, “but the execution leaves much to be desired”.
To strengthen enforcement, the Court suggested expanding recruitment of young personnel to assist with crowd regulation, passenger guidance and station management—an approach that could simultaneously improve railway safety while creating employment opportunities.
At the same time, the judgment reminded commuters that constitutional rights carry corresponding civic responsibilities. Passengers, too, must refrain from dangerous practices such as forcing entry into overcrowded compartments or travelling on footboards.
A JUDGMENT BEYOND COMPENSATION
The significance of Lata vs Union of India extends well beyond railway accident jurisprudence. It protects bereaved families from having legitimate claims defeated by rigid technicalities. It reinforces that welfare legislation must be interpreted to advance, not defeat, its humanitarian purpose.
More importantly, it recognizes that constitutional governance is reflected not only in major policy decisions, but also in the everyday vocabulary of public institutions.
LANGUAGE SHAPES INSTITUTIONAL CULTURE
Administrative terminology signals how government perceives those it serves.
And constitutional equality begins not merely with fair treatment, but with respectful recognition.
In asking the Railways to retire the phrase “second-class passenger,” the Supreme Court delivered a lesson that reaches far beyond railway administration. The dignity of a citizen, it reminded the State, is never determined by the price of a ticket.
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court,
Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi
The post Words Matter appeared first on India Legal.