{"id":81804,"date":"2000-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000"},"modified":"2019-02-12T12:46:12","modified_gmt":"2019-02-12T07:16:12","slug":"the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000","title":{"rendered":"The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: S Ahmad<\/div>\n
Bench: R.P.Sethi, S.Saghir Ahmad<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMRS.  CHANDRIMA DAS & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t28\/01\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nR.P.Sethi, S.Saghir Ahmad\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      S.SAGHIR AHMAD, J.\n<\/p>\n
      Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
      Mrs.   Chandrima\tDas,  a practising advocate  of\t the
\nCalcutta  High Court, filed a petition under Article 226  of
\nthe  Constitution  against  the\t  Chairman,  Railway  Board;
\nGeneral\t  Manager,  Eastern   Railway;\t Divisional  Railway
\nManager, Howrah Division;  Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern
\nRailway;   State of West Bengal through the Chief Secretary;
\nHome  Secretary, Government of West Bengal;   Superintendent
\nof  Police  (Railways), Howrah;\t Superintendent\t of  Police,
\nHowrah;\t  Director  General of Police, West Bengal and\tmany
\nother  Officers\t including  the\t Deputy\t High  Commissioner,
\nRepublic  of  Bangladesh;   claiming  compensation  for\t the
\nvictim,\t Smt.\tHanuffa Khatoon, a Bangladeshi national\t who
\nwas  gang-raped by many including employees of the  Railways
\nin  a  room at Yatri Niwas at Howrah Station of the  Eastern
\nRailway\t regarding  which  G.R.P.S.   Case  No.\t  19\/98\t was
\nregistered on 27th February, 1998.  Mrs.  Chandrima Das also
\nclaimed\t several other reliefs including a direction to\t the
\nrespondents to eradicate anti-social and criminal activities
\nat Howrah Railway Station.\n<\/p>\n
      The facts as noticed by the High Court in the impugned
\njudgment are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “Respondents  Railways  and  the Union of\t India\thave
\nadmitted  that amongst the main accused you are employees of
\nthe  railways  and if the prosecution version is  proved  in
\naccordance  with  law, they are perpetrators of the  heinous
\ncrime  of  gang rape repeatedly committed upon\tthe  hapless
\nvictim Hanufa Khatun.  It is not in dispute that Hanufa came
\nfrom  Bangladesh.  She at the relevant time was the  elected
\nrepresentative.\t  She  at the relevant time was the  elected
\nrepresentative\tof  the Union Board.  She arrived at  Howrah
\nRailway\t Station on 26th February, 1998 at about 14.00 hours
\nto  avail Jodhpur Express at 23.00 Hours for paying a  visit
\nto  Ajmer Sharif.  With that intent in mind, she arrived  at
\nCalcutta on 24th February, 1998 and stayed at a hotel at 10,
\nSudder\tStreet,\t Police Station Taltola and came  to  Howrah
\nStation\t on  the  date and time\t aforementioned.   She\thad,
\nhowever,  a wait listed ticket and so she approached a Train
\nTicket\tExaminer  at the Station for confirmation  of  berth
\nagainst\t her ticket.  The Train Ticket Examiner asked her to
\nwait  in  the Ladies Waiting room.  She accordingly came  to
\nthe ladies waiting room and rested there.\n<\/p>\n
      At  about\t 17.00\thours  on 26th\tFebruary,  1998\t two
\nunknown\t persons  (later identified as one Ashoke  Singh,  a
\ntout  who posed himself as a very influential person of\t the
\nRailway\t and  Siya Ram Singh a railway ticket broker  having
\ngood  acquaintance with some of the Railway Staff of  Howrah
\nStation)  approached  her, took her ticket and returned\t the
\nsame  after  confirming reservation in Coach  No.S-3  (Berth
\nNo.17)\tof  Jodhpur Express.  At about 20.00 hours Siya\t Ram
\nSingh  came again to her with a boy named Kashi and told her
\nto  accompany the boy to a restaurant if she wanted to\thave
\nfood  for  the night.  Accordingly at about 21.00 hours\t she
\nwent  to  a nearby eating house with Kashi and had her\tmeal
\nthere.\t Soon after she had taken her meal, she vomitted and
\ncame  back to the Ladies Waiting room.\tAt about 21.00 hours
\nAshoke\tSingh  along with Rafi Ahmed a Parcel Supervisor  at
\nHowrah\tStation came to the Ladies Niwas before boarding the
\ntrain.\t She  appeared to have some doubt initially  but  on
\nbeing  certified  by the lady attendants engaged on duty  at
\nthe   Ladies  Waiting  Room   about  their  credentials\t she
\naccompanied  them to Yatri Niwas.  Sitaram Singh, a  khalasi
\nof  electric Department of Howrah Station joined them on way
\nto  Yatri Niwas.  She was taken to room No.102 on the  first
\nfloor  of  Yatri Niwas.\t The room was booked in the name  of
\nAshoke\tSingh against Railway Card pass No.  3638 since 25th
\nFebruary,  1998.  In room No.102 two other persons viz.\t one
\nLalan  Singh,  Parcel  Clerk of Howrah Railway\tStation\t and
\nAwdesh\tSingh,\tParcel Clearing Agent were waiting.   Hanufa
\nKhatun suspected someting amiss when Ashoke Singh forced her
\ninto  the  room.  Awdesh Singh bolted the room from  outside
\nand  stood  on guard outside the room.\tThe  remaining\tfour
\npersons\t viz.\tAshoke, Lalan, Rafi and Sitaram took  liquor
\ninside\tthe room and also forcibly compelled her to  consume
\nliquor.\t  All  the four persons who were present inside\t the
\nroom  brutally violated, Hanufa Khatun, it is said, was in a
\nstate of shock and daze.  When she could recover she managed
\nto  escape from the room of Yatri Niwas and came back to the
\nplatform  where\t again she met Siya Ram Singh and found\t him
\ntalking\t to Ashoke Singh.  Seeing her plight Siya Ram  Singh
\npretended  to  be  her saviour and also abused\tand  slapped
\nAshoke\tSingh.\tSince it was well past midnight and  Jodhpur
\nExpress\t had  already  departed, Siya Ram  requested  Hanufa
\nKhatoon\t to  accompany him to his residence to rest for\t the
\nnight  with  his wife and children.  He assured her to\thelp
\nentrain Poorva Express on the following morning.  Thereafter
\nSiyaram\t accompanied  by  Ram Samiram Sharma,  a  friend  of
\nSiyaram took her to the rented flat of Ram Samiram Sharma at
\n66,   Pathuriaghata   Street,\tPolice\tStation\t  Jorabagan,
\nCalcutta.  There Siyaram raped Hanufa and when she protested
\nand resisted violently Siyaram and Ram Samiran Sharma gagged
\nher  mouth  and nostrils intending to kill her as  a  result
\nHanufa bled profusely.\tOn being informed by the landlord of
\nthe  building  following  the hue and cry raised  by  Hanufa
\nKhatun, she was rescued by Jorabagan Police.”\n<\/p>\n
      It  was on the basis of the above facts that the\tHigh
\nCourt  had  awarded a sum of Rs.10 lacs as compensation\t for
\nSmt.   Hanuffa Khatoon as the High Court was of the  opinion
\nthat  the  rape\t was committed at the building\t(Rail  Yatri
\nNiwas)\tbelonging to the Railways and was perpetrated by the
\nRailway employees.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the present appeal, we are not concerned with many
\ndirections  issued  by\tthe High Court.\t The  only  question
\nargued\tbefore us was that the Railways would not be  liable
\nto  pay\t compensation  to Smt.\tHanuffa Khatoon\t who  was  a
\nforeigner  and\twas  not  an Indian national.\tIt  is\talso
\ncontended  that\t commission  of the offence  by\t the  person
\nconcerned  would not make the Railway or the Union of  India
\nliable to pay compensation to the victim of the offence.  It
\nis  contended that since it was the individual act of  those
\npersons,  they alone would be prosecuted and on being  found
\nguilty\twould be punished and may also be liable to pay fine
\nor  compensation,  but\thaving regard to the facts  of\tthis
\ncase,  the Railways, or, for that matter, the Union of India
\nwould  not even be vicariously liable.\tIt is also contended
\nthat  for  claiming damages for the offence  perpetrated  on
\nSmt.   Hanuffa\tKhatoon,  the remedy lay in  the  domain  of
\nPrivate\t Law  and  not under Public Law and,  therefore,  no
\ncompensation  could  have been legally awarded by  the\tHigh
\nCourt  in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution
\nand, that too, at the instance of a practising advocate who,
\nin no way, was concerned or connected with the victim.\n<\/p>\n
      We  may  first  dispose of the  contention  raised  on
\nbehalf\tof the appellants that proceedings under Article 226
\nof  the\t Constitution could not have been legally  initiated
\nfor  claiming  damages from the Railways for the offence  of
\nrape  committed\t on  Smt.   Hanuffa Khatoon  and  that\tSmt.
\nHanuffa\t Khatoon herself should have approached the Court in
\nthe  realm of Private Law so that all the questions of\tfact
\ncould  have  been  considered on the basis of  the  evidence
\nadduced\t by the parties to record a finding whether all\t the
\ningredients  of the commission of “tort” against the  person
\nof Smt.\t Hanuffa Khatoon were made out, so as to be entitled
\nto the relief of damages.  We may also consider the question
\nof  locus  standi  as  it  is contended\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellants  that  Mrs.\tChandrima Das, who is  a  practicing
\nAdvocate  of  the  High Court of Calcutta,  could  not\thave
\nlegally instituted these proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
      The distinction between “Public Law” and “Private Law”
\nwas  considered\t by  a Three-Judge Bench of  this  Court  in
\nCommon\tCause,\tA Regd.\t Society vs.  Union of India &\tOrs.<\/a>
\n(1999)\t6  SCC 667 = AIR 1999 SC 2979 = (1999) 5 JT 237,  in
\nwhich it was, inter alia, observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
      “Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court
\nhas  been  given  the  power   and  jurisdiction  to   issue
\nappropriate  Writs  in the nature of  Mandamus,\t Certiorari,
\nProhibition,   Quo-Warranto  and  Habeas   Corpus  for\t the
\nenforcement  of Fundamental Rights or for any other purpose.
\nThus,  the  High  Court has jurisdiction not only  to  grant
\nrelief\tfor  the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but\talso
\nfor  “any other purpose” which would include the enforcement
\nof  public  duties by public bodies.  So also,\tthe  Supreme
\nCourt  under  Article  32  has\tthe  jurisdiction  to  issue
\nprerogative  Writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights
\nguaranteed to a citizen under the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
      Essentially,  under  public  law, it  is\tthe  dispute
\nbetween\t the citizen or a group of citizens on the one\thand
\nand  the State or other public bodies on the other, which is
\nresolved.   This is done to maintain the rule of law and  to
\nprevent\t the  State or the public bodies from acting  in  an
\narbitrary manner or in violation of that rule.\tThe exercise
\nof  constitutional powers by the High Court and the  Supreme
\nCourt  under Article 226 or 32 has been categorised as power
\nof  “judicial  review”.\t Every executive  or  administrative
\naction\tof the State or other statutory or public bodies  is
\nopen  to judicial scrutiny and the High Court or the Supreme
\nCourt can, in exercise of the power of judicial review under
\nthe  Constitution,  quash the executive action\tor  decision
\nwhich  is  contrary  to law or is violative  of\t Fundamental
\nRights\tguaranteed by the Constitution.\t With the  expanding
\nhorizon\t of Article 14 read with other Articles dealing with
\nFundamental  Rights, every executive action of the Govt.  or
\nother  public  bodies,\tincluding Instrumentalities  of\t the
\nGovt.,\tor those which can be legally treated as “Authority”
\nwithin the meaning of Article 12, if arbitrary, unreasonable
\nor contrary to law, is now amenable to the writ jurisdiction
\nof  this  Court\t under Article 32 or the High  Courts  under
\nArticle 226 and can be validly scrutinised on the touchstone
\nof the Constitutional mandates.”\n<\/p>\n
      The   earlier   decision,\t  namely,   Life   Insurance
\nCorporation of India vs.  Escorts Limited & Ors.<\/a>  1985 Supp.
\n(3)  SCR 909 = (1986) 1 SCC 264 = AIR 1986 SC 1370, in which
\nit was observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
      “Broadly\tspeaking, the Court will examine actions  of
\nState  if  they pertain to the pubic law domain and  refrain
\nfrom  examining\t them  if they pertain to  the\tprivate\t law
\nfield.\t The difficulty will lie in demarcating the frontier
\nbetween the public law domain and the private law field.  It
\nis  impossible to draw the line with precision and we do not
\nwant  to  attempt it.  The question must be decided in\teach
\ncase  with reference to the particular action, the  activity
\nin  which  the State or the instrumentality of the State  is
\nengaged\t when  performing  the\taction, the  public  law  or
\nprivate\t law  character\t of the action and a host  of  other
\nrelevant circumstances.”\n<\/p>\n
      was relied upon.\n<\/p>\n
      Various\taspects\t of  the   Public  Law\tfield\twere
\nconsidered.   It was found that though initially a  petition
\nunder\tArticle\t  226  of   the\t Constitution  relating\t  to
\ncontractual matters was held not to lie, the law underwent a
\nchange\tby subsequent decisions and it was noticed that even
\nthough\tthe petition may relate essentially to a contractual
\nmatter,\t it would still be amenable to the writ jurisdiction
\nof  the\t High  Court  under Article  226.   The\t Public\t Law
\nremedies have also been extended to the realm of tort.\tThis
\nCourt,\tin its various decisions, has entertained  petitions
\nunder  Article\t32  of\tthe  Constitution  on  a  number  of
\noccasions  and\thas awarded compensation to the\t petitioners
\nwho  had  suffered  personal injuries at the  hands  of\t the
\nofficers  of  the  Govt.   The causing\tof  injuries,  which
\namounted  to tortious act, was compensated by this Court  in
\nmany of its decisions beginning from Rudul Sah vs.  State of
\nBihar<\/a> 1983(3) SCR 508 = (1983) 4 SCC 141 = AIR 1983 SC 1086.
\n[See also :  Bhim Singh vs.  State of Jammu & Kashmir (1985)
\n4  SCC 577 = AIR 1986 SC 494;  People’s Union for Democratic
\nRights\tvs.  State of Bihar, 1987 (1) SCR 631 = (1987) 1 SCC
\n265 = AIR 1987 SC 355;\tPeople’s Union for Democratic Rights
\nThru.\tIts  Secy.  vs.\t Police Commissioner,  Delhi  Police
\nHeadquarters,<\/a>  (1989)  4  SCC  730 =  1989  (1)\t SCALE\t599;
\nSAHELI,\t A  Woman’s  Resources Centre vs.   Commissioner  of
\nPolice,\t Delhi (1990) 1 SCC 422 = 1989 (Supp.) SCR 488 = AIR
\n1990  SC  513;\t Arvinder  Singh Bagga vs.   State  of\tU.P.<\/a>
\n(1994) 6 SCC 565 = AIR 1995 SC 117;  P.\t Rathinam vs.  Union
\nof India<\/a> (1989) Supp.  2 SCC 716;  In Re:  Death of Sawinder
\nSingh  Grower (1995) Supp.  (4) SCC 450 = JT (1992) 6 SC 271
\n=  1992\t (3)  SCALE 34;\t Inder Singh vs.   State  of  Punjab
\n(1995)\t3 SCC 702 = AIR 1995 SC 1949;  D.K.  Basu vs.  State
\nof West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 = AIR 1997 SC 610].\n<\/p>\n
      In  cases\t relating  to  custodial  deaths  and  those
\nrelating   to  medical\tnegligence,   this   Court   awarded
\ncompensation  under Public Law domain in Nilabati Behera vs.
\nState  of  Orissa<\/a> (1993) 2 SCC 746 = 1993 (2) SCR 581 =\t AIR
\n1993  SC  1960;\t  State of M.P.\t vs.  Shyam  Sunder  Trivedi
\n(1995)\t4 SCC 262 = 1995 (3) SCALE 343;\t People’s Union\t for
\nCivil  Liberties vs.  Union of India<\/a> (1997) 3 SCC 433 =\t AIR
\n1997  SC  1203 and Kaushalya vs.  State of Punjab  (1996)  7
\nSCALE (SP) 13;\tSupreme Court Legal Aid Committee vs.  State
\nof  Bihar<\/a> (1991) 3 SCC 482;  Dr.  Jacob George vs.  State of
\nKerala<\/a>\t(1994)\t3  SCC 430 = 1994 (2)  SCALE  563;   Paschim
\nBangal\tKhet Mazdoor Samity vs.\t State of West Bengal & Ors.
\n(1996)\t4 SCC 37 = AIR 1996 SC 2426;  and Mrs.\tManju Bhatia
\nvs.  N.D.M.C.  (1997) 6 SCC 370 = AIR 1998 SC 223 = (1997) 4
\nSCALE 350.\n<\/p>\n
      Having  regard  to  what has been\t stated\t above,\t the
\ncontention that Smt.  Hanuffa Khatoon should have approached
\nthe  civil court for damages and the matter should not\thave
\nbeen  considered  in  a petition under Article\t226  of\t the
\nConstitution,\t cannot\t  be\t accepted.    Where   public
\nfunctionaries  are  involved and the matter relates  to\t the
\nviolation of Fundamental Rights or the enforcement of public
\nduties, the remedy would still be available under the Public
\nLaw  notwithstanding that a suit could be filed for  damages
\nunder Private Law.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  instant\tcase,  it is not a  mere  matter  of
\nviolation of an ordinary right of a person but the violation
\nof  Fundamental\t Rights\t which is involved.   Smt.   Hanuffa
\nKhatoon\t was a victim of rape.\tThis Court in Bodhisatwa vs.
\nMs.  Subdhra Chakroborty (1996) 1 SCC 490 has held “rape” as
\nan  offence which is violative of the Fundamental Right of a
\nperson guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.\t The
\nCourt observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
      “Rape  is\t a  crime not only against the person  of  a
\nwoman,\tit  is\ta  crime against  the  entire  society.\t  It
\ndestroys  the  entire psychology of a woman and\t pushes\t her
\ninto  deep  emotional  crisis.\tRape is therefore  the\tmost
\nhated  crime.  It is a crime against basic human rights\t and
\nis  violative  of the victims most cherished right,  namely,
\nright  to  life\t which\tincludes right to  live\t with  human
\ndignity contained in Article 21.”\n<\/p>\n
      Rejecting,  therefore,  the contention of the  learned
\ncounsel\t for  the appellants that the petition under  Public
\nLaw  was  not  maintainable,  we now  proceed  to  his\tnext
\ncontention  relating to the locus standi of respondent, Mrs.
\nChandrima Das, in filing the petition.\n<\/p>\n
      The  main\t contention of the learned counsel  for\t the
\nappellants is that Mrs.\t Chandrima Das was only a practising
\nadvocate  of  the  Calcutta High Court and was, in  no\tway,
\nconnected  or  related to the victim, Smt.  Hanuffa  Khatoon
\nand,  therefore,  she could not have filed a petition  under
\nArticle\t 226  for damages or compensation being\t awarded  to
\nSmt.   Hanuffa\tKhatoon on account of the rape committed  on
\nher.   This contention is based on a misconception.  Learned
\ncounsel\t for the appellants is under the impression that the
\npetition  filed\t before the Calcutta High Court was  only  a
\npetition  for  damages\tor compensation\t for  Smt.   Hanuffa
\nKhatoon.   As  a  matter  of fact, the\treliefs\t which\twere
\nclaimed\t  in   the   petition\tincluded  the\trelief\t for
\ncompensation.\tBut  many  other reliefs  as,  for  example,
\nrelief\tfor eradicating anti-social and criminal  activities
\nof  various  kinds  at\tHowrah\tRailway\t Station  were\talso
\nclaimed.   The\ttrue nature of the petition, therefore,\t was
\nthat of a petition filed in public interest.\n<\/p>\n
      The  existence  of  a legal right, no  doubt,  is\t the
\nfoundation  for\t a  petition under Article 226\tand  a\tbare
\ninterest,  may be of a minimum nature, may give locus standi
\nto  a  person  to file a Writ Petition, but the\t concept  of
\n“Locus\tStandi”\t has  undergone a sea change,  as  we  shall
\npresently  notice.  In Dr.  Satyanarayana Sinha vs.  S.\t Lal
\n&  Co.\tPvt.  Ltd., AIR<\/a> 1973 SC 2720 = (1973) 2 SCC 696,  it
\nwas  held  that the foundation for  exercising\tjurisdiction
\nunder  Article 32 or Article 226 is ordinarily the  personal
\nor  individual\tright of the petitioner himself.   In  writs
\nlike  Habeas  Corpus  and Quo Warranto, the  rule  has\tbeen
\nrelaxed and modified.\n<\/p>\n
      In S.P.  Gupta & Ors.  vs.  Union of India & Ors., AIR<\/a>
\n1982  SC  149  = (1981) Supp.  SCC 87, the law\trelating  to
\nlocus  standi was explained so as to give a wider meaning to
\nthe  phrase.  This Court laid down that “practising  lawyers
\nhave undoubtedly a vital interest in the independence of the
\njudiciary;    they   would  certainly\tbe   interested\t  in
\nchallenging  the validity or constitutionality of an  action
\ntaken  by  the State or any public authority which  has\t the
\neffect\tof impairing the independence of the judiciary.”  It
\nwas  further  observed\tthat  “lawyer’s\t profession  was  an
\nessential  and\tintegral part of the judicial system;\tthey
\ncould  figuratively be described as priests in the temple of
\njustice.   They\t have,\ttherefore,  a  special\tinterest  in
\npreserving  the\t integrity and independence of the  judicial
\nsystem;\t  they\tare  equal partners with the Judges  in\t the
\nadministration\tof  justice.  The lawyers, either  in  their
\nindividual  capacity  or  as   representing  some   Lawyers’
\nAssociations have the locus standi to challenge the circular
\nletter\taddressed by the Union Law Minister to the Governors
\nand  Chief Ministers directing that one third of the  Judges
\nof  the\t High  Court  should, as far as\t possible,  be\tfrom
\noutside the State.”\n<\/p>\n
      In the context of Public Interest Litigation, however,
\nthe  Court  in\tits  various   Judgments  has  given  widest
\namplitude  and\tmeaning to the concept of locus standi.\t  In
\nPeople’s Union for Democratic Rights and Ors.  vs.  Union of
\nIndia  &  Ors., AIR<\/a> 1982 SC 1473 = (1982) 3 SCC 235, it\t was
\nlaid down that Public Interest Litigation could be initiated
\nnot  only  by filing formal petitions in the High Court\t but
\neven  by sending letters and telegrams so as to provide easy
\naccess\tto  Court.   (See also:\t Bandhua  Mukti\t Morcha\t vs.
\nUnion  of India & Ors., AIR<\/a> 1984 SC 802 = 1984 (2) SCR 67  =
\n(1984)\t3  SCC\t161  and   State  of  Himachal\tPradesh\t vs.
\nStudent’s Parent Medical College, Shimla & Ors., AIR<\/a> 1985 SC
\n910 = (1985) 3 SCC 169 on the right to approach the Court in
\nthe  realm  of\tPublic Interest Litigation).   In  Bangalore
\nMedical Trust vs.  B.S.\t Muddappa and Ors., AIR<\/a> 1991 SC 1902
\n=  1991\t (3) SCR 102 = (1991) 4 SCC 54, the Court held\tthat
\nthe  restricted\t meaning  of  aggrieved\t person\t and  narrow
\noutlook\t of specific injury has yielded in favour of a broad
\nand  wide  construction\t in  the  wake\tof  Public  Interest
\nLitigation.  The Court further observed that public-spirited
\ncitizens having faith in the rule of law are rendering great
\nsocial\tand  legal  service by espousing  causes  of  public
\nnature.\t  They cannot be ignored or overlooked on  technical
\nor  conservative  yardstick of the rule of locus  standi  or
\nabsence of personal loss or injury.  There has, thus, been a
\nspectacular  expansion of the concept of locus standi.\t The
\nconcept\t is much wider and it takes in its stride anyone who
\nis not a mere “busy-body”.\n<\/p>\n
      Having  regard to the nature of the petition filed  by
\nrespondent  Mrs.   Chandrima  Das  and\tthe  relief  claimed
\ntherein it cannot be doubted that this petition was filed in
\npublic\tinterest  which\t could\tlegally\t  be  filed  by\t the
\nrespondent  and\t the argument that she could not  file\tthat
\npetition  as  there was nothing personal to her involved  in
\nthat petition must be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
      It was next contended by the learned counsel appearing
\non  behalf of the appellants, that Smt.\t Hanuffa Khatoon was
\na  foreign  national and, therefore, no relief under  Public
\nLaw could be granted to her as there was no violation of the
\nFundamental Rights available under the Constitution.  It was
\ncontended  that\t the Fundamental Rights in Part III  of\t the
\nConstitution  are available only to citizens of this country
\nand  since Smt.\t Hanuffa Khatoon was a Bangladeshi national,
\nshe  cannot complain of the violation of Fundamental  Rights
\nand  on\t that basis she cannot be granted any relief.\tThis
\nargument  must\talso  fail for two reasons;  first,  on\t the
\nground\tof  Domestic Jurisprudence based  on  Constitutional
\nprovisions  and\t secondly,  on the ground  of  Human  Rights
\nJurisprudence  based  on the Universal Declaration of  Human
\nRights, 1948, which has the international recognition as the
\n“Moral\tCode of Conduct” having been adopted by the  General
\nAssembly  of  the  United  Nations.  We\t will  come  to\t the
\nquestion  of  Domestic\tJurisprudence a little later  as  we
\nintend\tto first consider the principles and objects  behind
\nUniversal  Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, as adopted and
\nproclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution
\nof  10th December, 1948.  The preamble, inter alia, sets out
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
      “Whereas\trecognition  of the INHERENT DIGNITY and  of
\nthe equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human
\nfamily\tis  the foundation of freedom, justice and peace  in
\nthe world.\n<\/p>\n
      Whereas  disregard and contempt for human rights\thave
\nresulted   in  barbarous  acts\t which\thave  outraged\t the
\nconscience  of\tmankind, and the advent of a world in  which
\nhuman  beings  shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief\t and
\nfreedom\t from  fear  and  want has been\t proclaimed  as\t the
\nhighest aspiration of the common people.\n<\/p>\n
      Whereas  it is essential to promote the development of
\nfriendly relations between nations.\n<\/p>\n
      Whereas  the people of the United Nations have in\t the
\nCharter affirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, IN
\nTHE  DIGNITY AND WORTH OF THE HUMAN PERSON AND IN THE  EQUAL
\nRIGHTS\tOF  MEN\t AND WOMEN and have  determined\t to  promote
\nsocial\tprogress  and  better standards of  life  in  larger
\nfreedom.   Whereas Member States have pledged themselves  to
\nachieve,  in  cooperation  with\t  the  United  Nations,\t the
\npromotion  of universal respect for and observance of  human
\nrights and fundamental freedoms.\n<\/p>\n
      Whereas  a  common understanding of these\t rights\t and
\nfreedoms  is  of  the  greatest\t  importance  for  the\tfull
\nrealization of this pledge.”\n<\/p>\n
      Thereafter,  the Declaration sets out, inter alia,  in
\nvarious Articles, the following:\n<\/p>\n
      “Article 1 — All human beings are born free and equal
\nin  dignity  and rights.  They are endowed with\t reason\t and
\nconscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of
\nbrotherhood.\n<\/p>\n
      Article  2 — Every one is entitled to all the  rights
\nand   freedoms\tset  forth  in\tthis  Declaration,   without
\ndistinction  of\t any  kind,  such   as\trace,  colour,\tsex,
\nlanguage,  religion, political or other opinion, NATIONAL OR
\nSOCIAL ORIGIN, PROPERTY, BIRTH OR OTHER STATUS.\n<\/p>\n
      Furthermore, NO DISTINCTION SHALL BE MADE ON THE BASIS
\nOF  THE POLITICAL, JURISDICTIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF
\nTHE  COUNTRY OR TERRITORY to which a person belongs, whether
\nit  be\tindependent, trust, non-self governing or under\t any
\nother limitation of sovereignty.\n<\/p>\n
      Article  3 — Everyone has the right to life,  liberty
\nand security of person.\n<\/p>\n
      Article  5 — No one shall be subjected to torture  or
\nto cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\n<\/p>\n
      Article  7  —  All are equal before the law  and\t are
\nentitled  without any discrimination to equal protection  of
\nthe  law.  All are entitled to equal protection against\t any
\ndiscrimination\tin violation of this Declaration and against
\nany incitement to such discrimination.\n<\/p>\n
      Article  9  — No one shall be subjected to  arbitrary
\narrest, detention or exile.”\n<\/p>\n
      Apart from the above, the General Assembly, also while
\nadopting  the  Declaration  on the Elimination\tof  Violence
\nagainst\t Women, by its Resolution dated 20th December, 1993,
\nobserved  in Article 1 that, “violence against women”  means
\nany  act  of  gender-based violence that results in,  or  is
\nlikely\tto result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm
\nor  suffering  to  women, including threats  of\t such  acts,
\ncoercion  or  arbitrary\t deprivation   of  liberty,  whether
\noccurring  in  public or in private life.” In Article 2,  it
\nwas  specified\tthat,  “violence   against  women  shall  be
\nunderstood to encompass, but not be limited to:\n<\/p>\n
      (a)   Physical,  sexual\tand  psychological  violence
\noccurring in the family including battering, sexual abuse of
\nfemale\tchildren  in the household, dowry-related  violence,
\nmarital\t  rape,\t  female  genital   mutilation\t and   other
\ntraditional practices harmful to women, non-spousal violence
\nand violence related to exploitation;\n<\/p>\n
      (b)   Physical,  sexual\tand  psychological  violence
\noccurring  within  the\tgeneral community,  including  rape,
\nsexual abuse, sexual harassment and intimidation at work, in
\neducational institutions and elsewhere, trafficking in women
\nand forced prostitution;\n<\/p>\n
      (c)   Physical,  sexual\tand  psychological  violence
\nperpetrated or condoned by the State, wherever it occurs.”\n<\/p>\n
      In  Article  3,  it  was\tspecified  that\t “women\t are
\nentitlted to the equal enjoyment and protection of all human
\nrights, which would include, inter alia,:\n<\/p>\n
      (a)  the right to life, (b) the right to equality, and\n<\/p>\n
(c) the right to liberty and security of person.\n<\/p>\n
      The   International  Covenants   and  Declarations  as
\nadopted\t by  the United Nations have to be respected by\t all
\nsignatory States and the meaning given to the above words in
\nthose  Declarations  and Covenants have to be such as  would
\nhelp  in  effective  implementation of\tthose  Rights.\t The
\napplicability  of the Universal Declaration of Human  Rights
\nand principles thereof may have to be read, if need be, into
\nthe  domestic  jurisprudence.\tLord Diplock in\t Salomon  v.
\nCommissioners of Customs and Excise [1996] 3 All ER 871 said
\nthat  there  is a, prima facie, presumption that  Parliament
\ndoes  not  intend  to act in breach  of\t international\tlaw,
\nincluding  specfic treaty obligations.\tSo also, Lord Bridge
\nin  Brind  v.\tSecretary of State for the  Home  Department
\n[1991] 1 All ER 720, observed that it was well settled that,
\nin  construing\tany provision in domestic legislation  which
\nwas  ambiguous in the sense that it was capable of a meaning
\nwhich either conforms to or conflicts with the International
\nConvention,  the  courts  would\t  presume  that\t  Parliament
\nintended  to legislate in conformity with the Convention and
\nnot in conflict with it.\n<\/p>\n
      The domestic application of international human rights
\nand  norms was considered by the Judicial Colloquia  (Judges
\nand Lawyers) at Bangalore in 1988.  It was later affirmed by
\nthe  Colloquia that it was the vital duty of an\t independent
\njudiciary  to interpret and apply national constitutions  in
\nthe  light  of\tthose principles.   Further  Colloquia\twere
\nconvened  in  1994 at Zimbabwe, in 1996 at Hong Kong and  in
\n1997  at  Guyana and in all those Colloquia, the quetion  of
\ndomestic  application  of international and  regional  human
\nrights\tspecially in relation to women, was considered.\t The
\nZimbabwe Declaration 1994, inter alia, stated :\n<\/p>\n
      “Judges\tand  lawyers  have   duty   to\t familiarise
\nthemselves  with the growing international jurisprudence  of
\nhuman rights and particularly with the expanding material on
\nthe protection and promotion of the human rights of women.”\n<\/p>\n
      But  this\t situation  may\t not  really  arise  in\t our
\ncountry.\n<\/p>\n
      Our   Constitution  guarantees  all   the\t basic\t and
\nfundamental   human   rights  set   out\t in  the   Universal
\nDeclaration of Human Rights, 1948, to its citizens and other
\npersons.  The chapter dealing with the Fundamental Rights is
\ncontained  in Part III of the Constitution.  The purpose  of
\nthis  Part  is to safeguard the basic human rights from\t the
\nvicissitudes  of  political  controversy and to\t place\tthem
\nbeyond\tthe reach of the political parties who, by virtue of
\ntheir majority, may come to form the Govt.  at the Centre or
\nin the State.\n<\/p>\n
      The  Fundamental\tRights\tare  available\tto  all\t the
\n“citizens”  af\tthe  country  but a few\t of  them  are\talso
\navailable  to “persons”.  While Article 14, which guarantees
\nequality  before law or the equal protection of laws  within
\nthe  territory\tof  India, is applicable to  “person”  which
\nwould  also  include the “citizen” of the country and  “non-
\ncitizen” both, Article 15 speaks only of “citizen” and it is
\nspecifically  provided\ttherein\t that\tthere  shall  be  no
\ndiscrimination\tagainst any “citizen” on the ground only  of
\nreligion,  race,  caste, sex, place of birth or any of\tthem
\nnor  shall  any\t citizen  be subjected\tto  any\t disability,
\nliability, restriction or condition with regard to access to
\nshops,\tpublic\trestaurants,  hotels and  places  of  public
\nentertainment,\tor  the use of wells, tanks, bathing  ghats,
\nroads  and places of public resort on the aforesaid grounds.
\nFundamental Right guaranteed under Article 15 is, therefore,
\nrestricted  to\t“citizens”.   So   also,  Article  16  which
\nguarantees  equality  of  opportunity in matters  of  public
\nemployment   is\t  applicable  only   to\t  “citizens”.\t The
\nFundamental  Rights contained in Article 19, which  contains
\nthe right to “Basic Freedoms”, namely, freedom of speech and
\nexpression;  freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms;
\nfreedom\t to  form associations or unions;  freedom  to\tmove
\nfreely throughout the territory of India;  freedom to reside
\nand settle in any part of the territory of India and freedom
\nto  practise any profession, or to carry on any\t occupation,
\ntrade  or business, are available only to “citizens” of\t the
\ncountry.  The word “citizen” in Article 19 has not been used
\nin  a sense different from that in which it has been used in
\nPart  II  of  the Constitution dealing\twith  “citizenship”.
\n[See:\tState  Trading Corporation of India Ltd.   vs.\t The
\nCommercial  Tax Officer and Others, AIR<\/a> 1963 SC 1811 =\t1964
\n(4)  SCR  99].\tIt has also been held in this case that\t the
\nwords “all citizens” have been deliberately used to keep out
\nall  “non-citizens”  which would include “aliens”.   It\t was
\nlaid  down  in Hans Muller of Nurenburg vs.   Superintendent
\nPresidency  Jail Calcutta, AIR<\/a> 1955 SC 367 (374) = 1955\t (1)
\nSCR  1284, that this Article applies only to “citizens”.  In
\nanother\t decision in Anwar vs.\tState of J & K, AIR<\/a> 1971  SC
\n337  = 1971 (1) SCR 637 = (1971) 3 SCC 104, it was held that
\nnon-citizen could not claim Fundamental Rights under Article\n<\/p>\n
19.   In Naziranbai vs.\t State, AIR 1957 M.B.  1 and Lakshmi
\nPrasad\t&  Anr.\t vs.  Shiv Pal & Others, AIR<\/a> 1974  Allahabad
\n313,  it  was  held  that Article 19 does  not\tapply  to  a
\n“foreigner”.   The Calcutta High Court in Sk.  Md.   Soleman
\nvs.   State  of West Bengal and Another, AIR  1965  Calcutta
\n312,  held that Article 19 does not apply to a\tCommonwealth
\ncitizen.\n<\/p>\n
      In  Anwar vs.  State of J & K, AIR<\/a> 1971 SC 337 =\t1971
\n(1)  SCR 637 = (1971) 3 SCC 104 (already referred to above),
\nit was held that the rights under Articles 20, 21 and 22 are
\navailable not only to “citizens” but also to “persons” which
\nwould include “non-citizens”.\n<\/p>\n
      Article  20 guarantees right to protection in  respect
\nof  conviction for offences.  Article 21 guarantees right to
\nlife  and personal liberty while Article 22 guarantees right
\nto protection against arbitrary arrest and detention.  These
\nare  wholly  in\t consonance with Article 3,  Article  7\t and
\nArticle\t 9  of\tthe Universal Declaration of  Human  Rights,
\n1948.\n<\/p>\n
      The  word “LIFE” has also been used prominently in the
\nUniversal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.  [See:  Article
\n3   quoted  above].   The   Fundamental\t Rights\t under\t the
\nConstitution  are  almost  in  consonance  with\t the  Rights
\ncontained  in  the Universal Declaration of Human Rights  as
\nalso  the  Declaration\tand  the   Covenants  of  Civil\t and
\nPolitical  Rights and the Covenants of Economic, Social\t and
\nCultural  Rights, to which India is a party having  ratified
\nthem, as set out by this Court in Kubic Darusz vs.  Union of
\nIndia  &  Ors.<\/a>\t (1990) 1 SCC 568 = AIR 1990 SC\t 605.\tThat
\nbeing  so, since “LIFE” is also recognised as a basic  human
\nright in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, it
\nhas  to have the same meaning and interpretation as has been
\nplaced\ton that word by this Court in its various  decisions
\nrelating  to Article 21 of the Constitution.  The meaning of
\nthe  word “life” cannot be narrowed down.  According to\t the
\ntenor  of  the\tlanguage  used in Article  21,\tit  will  be
\navailable  not\tonly to every citizen of this  country,\t but
\nalso to a “person” who may not be a citizen of the country.\n<\/p>\n
      Let  us  now consider the meaning of the\tword  “LIFE”
\ninterpreted  by\t this  Court from time to time.\t  In  Kharak
\nSingh  vs.   State of U.P., AIR<\/a> 1963 SC 1295 = 1964 (1)\t SCR
\n332,  it  was held that the term “life” indicates  something
\nmore  than  mere  animal existence.  [See also :   State  of
\nMaharashtra  vs.   Chandrabhan Tale, AIR<\/a> 1983 SC 803 =\t1983
\n(3)  SCR 337 = (1983) 3 SCC 387].  The inhibitions contained
\nin  Article 21 against its deprivation extends even to those
\nfaculties by which life is enjoyed.  In Bandhua Mukti Morcha
\nvs.   U.O.I.,  AIR 1984 SC 802 = 1984 (2) SCR 67 = (1984)  3
\nSCC 161, it was held that the right to life under Article 21
\nmeans\tthe   right  to\t live\twith  dignity,\t free\tfrom
\nexploitation.\t[See  also:  Maneka Gandhi vs.\tU.O.I.,\t AIR
\n1978  SC 597 = 1978 (2) SCR 621 = (1978) 1 SCC 248 and Board
\nof  Trustees  of  the  Port  of\t Bombay\t vs.   Dilip   Kumar
\nRaghavendranath Nadkarni, AIR<\/a> 1983 SC 109 = 1983 (1) SCR 828
\n= (1983) 1 SCC 124].\n<\/p>\n
      On  this principle, even those who are not citizens of
\nthis  country  and  come here merely as tourists or  in\t any
\nother  capacity will be entitled to the protection of  their
\nlives  in  accordance  with the\t Constitutional\t provisions.
\nThey  also  have a right to “Life” in this  country.   Thus,
\nthey  also have the right to live, so long as they are here,
\nwith  human  dignity.\tJust  as   the\tState  is  under  an
\nobligation  to\tprotect\t the life of every citizen  in\tthis
\ncountry, so also the State is under an obligation to protect
\nthe life of the persons who are not citizens.\n<\/p>\n
      The   Rights   guaranteed\t under\t Part  III  of\t the
\nConstitution are not absolute in terms.\t They are subject to
\nreasonable  restrictions  and,\ttherefore, in case  of\tnon-
\ncitizen also, those Rights will be available subject to such
\nrestrictions  as  may  be  imposed in the  interest  of\t the
\nsecurity  of  the State or other  important  considerations.
\nInterest of the Nation and security of the State is supreme.
\nSince  1948 when the Universal Declaration was adopted\ttill
\nthis  day, there have been many changes – political,  social
\nand  economic  while  terrorism\t has  disturbed\t the  global
\nscenario.   Primacy  of\t the  interest\tof  Nation  and\t the
\nsecurity  of  State will have to be read into the  Universal
\nDeclaration   as   also\t in   every  Article  dealing\twith
\nFundamental  Rights,  including\t Article 21  of\t the  Indian
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
      It  has already been pointed out above that this Court
\nin  Bodhisatwa’s  case (supra) has already held that  “rape”
\namounts\t to violation of the Fundamental Right guaranteed to
\na woman under Article 21 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
      Now, Smt.\t Hanuffa Khatoon, who was not the citizen of
\nthis  country but came here as a citizen of Bangladesh\twas,
\nnevertheless,  entitled\t to  all the  constitutional  rights
\navailable  to  a  citizen  so far as  “Right  to  Life”\t was
\nconcerned.   She was entitled to be treated with dignity and
\nwas  also  entitled  to\t the protection\t of  her  person  as
\nguaranteed  under  Article  21 of the  Constitution.   As  a
\nnational of another country, she could not be subjected to a
\ntreatment which was below dignity nor could she be subjected
\nto  physical  violence at the hands of Govt.  employees\t who
\noutraged  her  modesty.\t  The Right available to  her  under
\nArticle\t 21 was thus violated.\tConsequently, the State\t was
\nunder  the  Constitutional liability to pay compensation  to
\nher.   The  judgment  passed  by the  Calcutta\tHigh  Court,
\ntherefore,  allowing  compensation  to her for\thaving\tbeen
\ngang-raped, cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the appellants then contended that
\nthe Central Govt.  cannot be held vicariously liable for the
\noffence\t of rape committed by the employees of the Railways.
\nIt  was contended that the liability under the Law of  Torts
\nwould arise only when the act complained of was performed in
\nthe course of official duty and since rape cannot be said to
\nbe  an official act, the Central Govt.\twould not be  liable
\neven under the Law of Torts.  The argument is wholly bad and
\nis contrary to the law settled by this Court on the question
\nof vicarious liability in its various decisions.\n<\/p>\n
      In  State of Rajasthan vs.  Mst.\tVidhyawati AIR<\/a>\t1962
\nSC  933,  it  was held that the Govt.  will  be\t vicariously
\nliable\tfor  the tortious act of its employees.\t This was  a
\ncase  where  a claim for damages was made by the heirs of  a
\nperson\twho died in an accident caused by the negligence  of
\nthe  driver of a Govt.\tvehicle.  Reference may also be made
\nto  the\t decisions  of this Court in State  of\tGujarat\t vs.
\nMemon  Mahomed Haji Hasan AIR<\/a> 1967 SC 1885 and Smt.   Basava
\nKom  Dyamogouda Patil vs.  State of Mysore AIR 1977 SC 1749.
\nThese  principles were reiterated in N.\t Nagendra Rao &\t Co.
\nvs.   State of A.P.  AIR<\/a> 1994 SC 2663 = (1994) 6 SCC 205 and
\nagain  in  State of Maharashtra vs.   Kanchanmala  Vijaysing
\nShirke,<\/a>\t 1995 ACJ 1021 (SC) = (1995) 5 SCC 659 = JT 1995 (6)
\nSC  155.  Reliance placed by the counsel for the  appellants
\non  the decision of this Court in Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain
\nvs.   State  of\t U.P.  AIR 1965 SC 1039 = 1965 (1)  SCR\t 375
\ncannot\thelp  him as this decision has not been followed  by
\nthis  Court  in\t the  subsequent  decisions,  including\t the
\ndecisions  in State of Gujarat vs.  Memon Mahomed Haji Hasan
\nand  Smt.  Basava Kom Dyamogouda Patil<\/a> vs.  State of  Mysore
\n(supra).   The\tdecision  in  Kasturi Lal’s  case  was\talso
\nseverely  criticised by Mr.  Seervai in his prestigious book\n<\/p>\n
– Constitutional Law of India.\tA Three- Judge Bench of this
\nCourt  in Common Cause, A Regd.\t Society vs.  Union of India<\/a>
\n(1999) 6 SCC 667 also did not follow the decision in Kasturi
\nLal’s  case  (supra) and observed that the efficacy of\tthis
\ndecision as a binding precedent has been eroded.\n<\/p>\n
      The  theory of Sovereign power which was propounded in
\nKasturi\t Lal’s\tcase has yielded to new theories and  is  no
\nlonger\tavailable in a welfare State.  It may be pointed out
\nthat  functions\t of  the  Govt.\t  in  a\t welfare  State\t are
\nmanifold,  all of which cannot be said to be the  activities
\nrelating  to exercise of Sovereign powers.  The functions of
\nthe  State not only relate to the defence of the country  or
\nthe administration of justice, but they extend to many other
\nspheres\t as,  for  example, education,\tcommercial,  social,
\neconomic,  political  and  even marital.   These  activities
\ncannot be said to be related to Sovereign power.\n<\/p>\n
      Running\tof  Railways  is   a  commercial   activity.
\nEstablishing  Yatri  Niwas  at various Railway\tStations  to
\nprovide\t lodging  and boarding facilities to  passengers  on
\npayment\t of charges is a part of the commercial activity  of
\nthe  Union of India and this activity cannot be equated with
\nthe exercise of Sovereign power.  The employees of the Union
\nof  India who are deputed to run the Railways and to  manage
\nthe  establishment, including the Railway Stations and Yatri
\nNiwas,\tare  essential\tcomponents of the  Govt.   machinery
\nwhich  carries\ton the commercial activity.  If any of\tsuch
\nemployees  commits an act of tort, the Union Govt., of which
\nthey  are  the\temployees,  can,   subject  to\tother  legal
\nrequirements  being satisfied, be held vicariously liable in
\ndamages\t to the person wronged by those employees.   Kasturi
\nLal’s  decision,  therefore,  cannot  be  pressed  in\taid.
\nMoreover,  we  are dealing with this case under\t Public\t Law
\ndomain and not in a suit instituted under Private Law domain
\nagainst\t persons who, utilising their official position, got
\na room in the Yatri Niwas booked in their own name where the
\nact complained of was committed.\n<\/p>\n
      No  other\t point\twas raised before  us.\t The  appeal
\nhaving\tno merit is dismissed with the observation that\t the
\namount\tof  compensation  shall\t be made over  to  the\tHigh
\nCommissioner  for  Bangladesh  in India for payment  to\t the
\nvictim,\t Smt.\tHanuffa\t Khatoon.  The payment to  the\tHigh
\nCommissioner  shall be made within three months.  There will
\nbe no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000 Author: S Ahmad Bench: R.P.Sethi, S.Saghir Ahmad PETITIONER: THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: MRS. CHANDRIMA DAS & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/01\/2000 BENCH: R.P.Sethi, S.Saghir Ahmad JUDGMENT: S.SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-81804","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-12T07:16:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-12T07:16:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000\"},\"wordCount\":6495,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000\",\"name\":\"The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-12T07:16:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-12T07:16:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000","datePublished":"2000-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-12T07:16:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000"},"wordCount":6495,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000","name":"The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-12T07:16:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-railway-board-ors-vs-mrs-chandrima-das-ors-on-28-january-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81804","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=81804"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81804\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81804"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81804"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81804"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}