Calcutta High Court Directs RPF To Increase Vigilance To Deal With 'Menace' Of Male Passengers In 'Female-Only' Train Compartments

Srinjoy Das

8 July 2024 10:40 AM GMT

  • Bombay High Court, Travel, Local Train, Fully vaccinated citizens, PIL, Permission for travel, travel restrictions, relaxation,

    Women getting down from a local train at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus. | Photo Credit: Vivek Bendre

    Listen to this Article

    The Calcutta High Court has recently directed the Railway Police Force (RPF) to conduct more frequent inspection drives in order to combat the menace of male passengers travelling in train compartments exclusively reserved for women.

    A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya also directed for public announcements to be made that anyone travelling in female compartments unauthorisedly would be prosecuted.

    While placing on record the effective steps taken by the RPF, we observe that the frequency of conducting such drives by the RPF should be increased so that this menace can be avoided apart from making announcements in the public address system in all railway stations that if male passengers travel in compartments reserved exclusively for female passengers, they will be prosecuted.

    These observations came in a PIL filed by a practising advocate who submitted that unauthorized male passengers were boarding and travelling in the compartments reserved exclusively for female passengers.

    It was stated that there had been various instances where the male passengers boarded the compartments reserved exclusively for female passengers untoward incidents had occurred.

    In reply, the RPF submitted that it would carry out inspection drives in order to combat this problem and that it had also arrested almost 3,477 people who were found to be unauthorisedly travelling in the female compartments.

    While noting that the RPF had been looking into the problem, the court held that the sheer number of arrests would show that it was indeed a 'menace' and thus vigilance would need to be increased.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 158

    Case: Piyeta Bhattacharjee Vs. Union of India & Ors.

    Case No: WPA(P) 259 of 2024

    Click here to read order

    Next Story