M J Antony: In the driver's seat
The SC asks the judiciary not to hijack rail administration
Several causes are attributed to the present decline in the earnings of railways and its steady slip into a financial mess. Frequent accidents followed by heavy payouts in compensation (rail travellers are the only ones not insured), agitations like that of Jats, Gujars and Telenganites, ticket-less travel, colonial-era infrastructure, absent ministers and general mismanagement are some. Railway ministers announce in almost every budget, uneconomic routes to their own pocket boroughs. Apparently taking a cue from them, the judiciary also tends to cast its stone at the railways, which sins and is also sinned against.
It came to light in an order passed by the Supreme Court last month that the Madhya Pradesh High Court took special care of passengers who travelled by inter-city express between Gwalior and Indore, where the high court Benches sit. At the instance of a lawyer, the high court ordered changes in the timings of several trains, added AC-II and AC-I coaches and went full throttle against the railway authorities with some 10 more demands. Though they pointed out technical hurdles, they were threatened with contempt of court action. So the railways moved the Supreme Court (Union of India vs J D Suryavansh).
Since this is the second such case from the same state, the Supreme Court chided the high court in strong terms. “We shudder to think,” the judgment said, “what would happen if every high court starts giving directions to the railway to provide additional trains, additional coaches and change in timings wherever they feel that there is a shortage of trains or need for better timings. It is for the railway administration to decide where, how and when trains or coaches should be added or the timings should be changed.”
Moreover, the courts do not have data inputs, specialised 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 or safety requirements.
The railway did comply with several directions of the court. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that “courtesies extended by the railways should not be taken as readiness to comply with impractical suggestions and unreasonable directions.”
The Supreme Court had made similar remarks in an earlier judgment in which high court judges took over the wheels of railway administration (Union of India vs Nagesh). Criticising the high court for passing orders beyond its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court said: “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 writ petition.”
In the latest case, the court concluded its judgment with a warning that the malaise of interference in the functioning of the railway administration is a matter of concern. “Courts, bureaucracy and political leaders should give up the tendency to compel or pressurise 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.”
The misplaced hyper-activism of judges is used as argumentative fodder by the government when it wants to challenge inconvenient orders. The Supreme Court is currently dealing with two issues of great importance, namely, ill-gotten money cached in foreign banks and the 2G scam. In the first case, the court appointed two of its retired judges to supervise a panel set up by the government to chase the money abroad. The government wants the court to recall the order, arguing that the court had overstepped its jurisdiction. The power of judicial review must be kept within bounds, it argued. This issue divided a two-judge Bench and they have referred the question to a larger Bench.
The court has been dealing with the 2G pile for nearly a year and its orders have led to several skeletons tumbling from ministers’ cupboards. The government’s theme-song at all hearings is the limits of the judicial power. On the eve of Dussehra, its counsel told judges that they should not cross the Lakshman Rekha, lest it should start epic hostilities. The judges’ retort was that if Sita had not crossed the line, Raavan would not have been slain.
Whether this logomachy will erupt into a full-blown confrontation between the judiciary and the executive, only time will tell. One would think that crossing the line could be overlooked while chasing monumental evils. Hijacking trains to one’s favourite constituency is another matter.