Chennai Metro Rail Lacks Authority To Fine Passengers Not Wearing Face Masks Inside Metro Premises: Madras High Court

"Whatever has been the intentions, when the action is confiscatory in nature as the imposition of a fine or penalty, it has to be backed by due sanction of law."

Advocate Jayesh B Dolia, appearing for the Metro Rail Corporation, argued that the organization derives the power to collect fines from passengers under Section 6(2)(i) of the Metro Railways (Operation & Maintenance) Act, 2002.

He relied on Section 6(2)(i) of the Act which empowers the Metro Rail Administration to carry out all incidental acts as are necessary for discharge of any function conferred, or imposed, on it by the Act.

He also referred to Section 5 of the Act that lays down the functions of the Metro Railway Administration.

He also relied on Sections 59, 79 and 77 of the same Act that mentions various offences and punishment for the same with respect to metro rails to establish that CMRL was well within its power to impose penalty as per the press release.

The Petitioner on the other hand, R. Muthukrishnan, appearing in person, pointed out that Section 79 of the Act, which talks about 'endangering the safety of persons travelling by metro railway by wilful act or omission', does not confer any power to impose fine upon the wrongdoers.

He underscored that the notification via press release must be invariably retracted.

The counsel for the respondent continued that, "Initially, we had said that tickets will be given only to those who were wearing face masks, and even face mask vending machines were installed. What happened was that many of them used to remove their masks once they entered the coaches. Almost 1.25 lakh passengers commute every day using Metro."

Chief Justice observed that while metro rails do have the authority under the Metro Railways Act to impose penalties on people travelling without tickets, the same does not extend to those not wearing face masks.

"There must be a law for invoking penalties; you can appeal to the legislature to make a provision for the same. However, it must be noted that we can't issue a writ of mandamus directing the legislature to make a law."

The counsel also submitted that 13 Metro Rail Administrations in the country have invoked their powers under Section 6(2) (i) of the Act to collect penalties from those without facemasks.

The court made an effort to elaborate upon the error in the CMRL's submissions:

"The first respondent relies on the residuary clause (i) under S. 6(2) of the Act to suggest that a fine could be imposed based on such authority conferred on them. Ordinarily, the residuary clause in any provision has to be ejusdem generis with the preceding clauses, and at any rate, such residuary clause must have nexus with activities referred to the in the preceding clauses."

Instances not envisaged by the preceding clauses cannot be incorporated into matters in a residuary clause governed by the preceding clauses. The powers under Section 6 can only be invoked to carry out Metro Rail Administration's functions under Section 5 of the Act, the court held.

Since none of the provisions of the Metro Railways Act specifically lays down or expressly provides for the power of Administration to resort to confiscatory acts on the persons concerned, the notification can't survive, the court remarked in its order.

Press Release by CMRL had stated that it has been issued due to the necessity to control the pandemic as advised by Greater Chennai Corporation under Epidemic Control Act and Tamil Nadu Public Health Act. The press release also cited the Tamil Nadu Government's order imposing a spot fine of Rs 200/- for anyone found without face masks in public.

The court admitted the submission by CMRL that the state government has introduced certain categories of offences via Ordinances according to Section 76 of Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, exercising the powers to compound offences under Section 138A of the same Act, including the ordinance on September 4, 2020.

The court deemed it fit to not go into the veracity of such subsequent ordinances to amend Tamil Nadu Public Health Act.

"Mainly, despite assuming that the ordinance of such subsequent enactments were/ are valid, such power conferred by those provisions could not have been appropriated by Chennai Metro Rail Limited without the governing law expressly conferring such jurisdiction on CMRL to impose penalty. If at all, state may have imposed such penalty assuming that the ordinance and subsequent enactments are or were valid by treating the metro trail premises and passenger coaches as public places. However, merely because the state had the power to impose penalty couldn't imply that CMRL has the power or jurisdiction to impose the same," the court observed.

The issuance of notification imposing fines for the non-adherence to Covid protocol by the state has not conferred any authority on CMRL, the bench concluded.

Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee ruled that the writ petition has been substantially allowed by setting aside the press release of CMRL dated April 10, 2021.

Since a substantial amount of money has been collected as fines pursuant to the press release, the court allowed CMRL to retain the said amount and appropriate the same. It is impossible to discover the persons who have paid the fines until now and even such persons may not be interested to collect the money back, the court noted.

Case Title: R. Muthukrishnan v. Chennai Metro Rail Limited

Case No: WP/17234/2021 (PIL)

Click Here To Read/ Download Order