The Jerusalem PostFour oil tankers destroyed by naval mines in Strait of Hormuz, IRGC announcesInquirerBukidnon sugar planters reject US export quotaPunchFULL LIST: 10 African countries with restrictions on dual citizenshipZDF heuteEntdecken Sie das ZDF-NachrichtenstudioEvening StandardSadiq Khan praises US voters for 'true rejection of damaging and divisive politics of Donald Trump'کیهان لندناصرار بر مذاکره؛ الگوی یک سیاستِ «شکست‌خورده»Het Laatste NieuwsCyberaanval op diepvriezers supermarkten mogelijk werk van hackers met Russische bandenRMF24Karol Nawrocki o "pani dwojga nazwisk". Ostra reakcja marszałka SejmuSRF NewsGewinne der Ölkonzerne – Sprudelnde Einnahmen, doch Übergewinnsteuer hat schweren Stand7sur7Après la défaite, quelle fin de mandat pour Trump?RTL BoulevardMarco Borsato wil graag zijn vak weer uitoefenenSportstarRanji Trophy LIVE Score Updates, Round 4 Day 3: Services fight back vs Delhi; Karnataka, Vidarbha complete bonus point wins
The Daily Newsstand · Free, Always
Wednesday, November 4, 2026

Madras HC refuses to alter railway rule restricting sleeping berth timings in reserved coaches: 'Designed to serve public interest'

Translate

The Madras High Court has upheld the restriction on sleeping berth timings in reserved railway coaches, holding that the rule, which allows passengers to use sleeping berths only between 10 pm and 6 am, ensures the convenience of all passengers travelling in the coach.

A bench of chief justice SA Dharmadhikari and justice G Arul Murugan dismissed an appeal challenging Para 652(a) of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual, Volume I, which imposes the restriction. The bench said an isolated instance of co-passengers refusing to accommodate a sick person beyond the prescribed sleeping hours did not warrant striking down the provision.

“The restrictions under Para 652 bear a reasonable nexus for ensuring convenience for all traveling passengers. A solitary instance, where co-passengers declined to extend sleeping hours for the appellant's unwell wife, does not justify invalidating a rule designed to serve the broader public interest,” the court said.

Also Read | Centre directs MCD to clear waste along railway tracks in Delhi

What did the court say?

The order was passed on an appeal filed by S Balasubramanian, a resident of Chennai, who alleged that he was traveling with his wife when co-passengers refused to let her use the sleeping berth beyond the prescribed hours though she was unwell. The petitioner said the manual allowed pregnant women, persons with disabilities, and sick passengers to request co-passengers to accommodate their needs but this safeguard did not serve a purpose.

Balasubramanian filed an appeal against the single-bench decision that had previously rejected his petition.

The division bench noted that Para 652(d) sought to balance the convenience of all passengers travelling in reserved coaches. Under the provision, passengers can use sleeping accommodation between 10 pm and 6 am, while the remaining hours are reserved for sitting accommodation. This arrangement ensures that passengers allotted middle and upper berths also have adequate seating space during the day, the court said.

The bench observed that the restriction aimed to let all passengers with valid tickets travel comfortably without inconveniencing co-passengers. It also noted that the manual contained safeguards for pregnant women, persons with disabilities and sick passengers.

Also Read | Permanent holding area, no platform tickets: Northern Railway prepares for Diwali rush in Delhi

Passengers can approach railway authorities

However, the court emphasised that passengers facing difficulties could approach railway officials to ensure that the safeguards under the manual were enforced.

“We, however, clarify that passengers experiencing difficulties can report them to railway officials, who are bound to ensure that the safeguards under Para 652(d) are properly enforced,” the high court said.

The court also noted that the appellant could have approached the Railway Protection Force (RPF) or other railway officials when his co-passenger refused to cooperate to ensure that the safeguards operated as intended. However, the petitioner chose to challenge the validity of the provision without first seeking assistance from the authorities, it said.

View the original on Hindustan Times →

KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.