'Unauthorised Sale Of Railway Tickets Online Offence' : Supreme Court Restores Cases For Fraudulent IRCTC Site Use

The Supreme Court today (Jan.9) reinstated the proceedings initiated under Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989 ("Act") against the accused, who had been involved in unauthorized activities by creating multiple user IDs to sell E-railway tickets.

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra overturned the Kerala High Court's decision that had quashed the proceedings against the respondent against whom the allegation was that he had unlawfully procured and sold e-railway tickets by creating hundreds of IRCTC IDs. The High Court had ruled that the liability under Section 143 of the Act applied only when tickets were sold offline and did not extend to cases of unauthorized online ticket sales.

Section 143 of the Railways Act deals with the penalty for carrying out unauthorized business of procuring and selling railway tickets.

The Court observed that for attracting liability under Section 143 of the Railways Act, it is not necessary that the railway tickets be sold offline, instead the provision prohibits the sale of unauthorized railway tickets via both online and offline modes.

“Section 143, importantly, makes no distinction between physical and online sale of tickets. The mischief that the provision seeks to remedy is that there should not be illegal and unauthorised. procurement and sale of tickets, whatever be the mode – physical or online. The Kerala High Court seems to have missed this aspect.”

The Court found that the High Court was wrong in giving a wrong interpretation to Section 143 of the Act, stating that the provision penalizes only the unauthorized sale of offline tickets and not e-tickets.

The judgment authored by Justice Datta criticized the High Court's narrow and pedantic approach while interpreting Section 143 of the Act. Instead, it said that the statute should be constructed in such a fashion that it is broad enough to envelop the subsequent developments.

In this regard, the Court referred to the observation of the English Case of Comdel Commodities Ltd. v. Siporex Trade S.A. (No. 2), (1990) 2 All E R 552 (HL) which was categorically followed in Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India (2019).

“When a change in social conditions produces a novel situation, which was not in contemplation at the time when a statute was first enacted, there can be no a priori assumption that the enactment does not apply to the new circumstances. If the language of the enactment is wide enough to extend to those circumstances, there is no reason why it should not apply.”, observes the English Case.

Applying the aforesaid proposition, the Court rejected the High Court's construction of Section 143 while allowing the quashing petition filed by Respondent on the ground that the Act was enacted before the advent of the internet and e-tickets and the lawmakers could not have envisioned the sale of tickets, online.

“Statutory interpretation has to follow certain principles which have been formulated through legal precedents. No court can refuse to enforce a provision on the sole basis of the provision predating any subsequent development regarding the ticketing process. If it can be demonstrated that a statutory provision is broad enough to envelop the subsequent developments, even if the developments were not envisioned by the legislature, the provision would stay operational.”, the court observed.

Also, a reference was drawn to the case of Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. V. State of Haryana (2009) where it was held that “the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. The language employed in a statute is determinative factor of legislative intent. If the language of the enactment is clear and unambiguous, it would not be proper for the courts to add any words thereto and evolve some legislative intent, not found in the statute.”

Since, Section 143 “in its plain language, prohibits any person, other than a railway servant or an authorised agent, to conduct the business of procurement and supply of railway tickets. The provision does not specify the modalities of the procurement and supply. Hence, if we read the section and give its contents the natural and ordinary meaning, keeping in mind the objective and purpose of the legislation, as discussed above, it admits of no doubt that this provision criminalises unauthorised procurement and supply, irrespective of the mode of procurement and supply.”, the Court added.

“IRCTC has limited the number of tickets which can be reserved on one personal user ID at 12 per month (24 per month with a user ID which is Aadhaar verified). Mathew (Respondent), it is alleged, had created hundreds of fake user IDs to sell tickets without any authorisation from the railways. Although the internet and e-tickets were unknown in India when the Act was brought into force, this conduct of Mathew (who is neither a railway servant nor an authorised agent) nevertheless attracts criminality under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. P. N. Prakash, Sr. Adv. Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mrs. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Mrs. Sonia Mathur, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantray, Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar Dubey, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Terdal, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jad, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. A. Raghunath, AOR Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K. Joy, Adv. Mr. Ajith Anto Perumbully, Adv.

Case Title: INSPECTOR, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, KOTTAYAM VERSUS MATHEW K CHERIAN & ANR. (and Connected Case)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 42

Click here to read/download the judgment