Back
Seeks Centre, IRCTC Reply on Online Lower Berth for Pregnant Women
The on Wednesday issued notice to the , the , and the on a seeking an online mechanism to allow pregnant women to book lower berths under the existing railway reservation policy. A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that while the policy recognizes pregnant women for , the IRCTC platform currently lacks any digital facility to avail this benefit.
“IRCTC appears to be an agent of the Railways. It becomes the of Railways to ensure that its policy is complied with,” the court remarked, signaling that the authorities cannot shift responsibility to a third-party booking platform. The bench added that it expects the Centre and the to take all appropriate steps to ensure the policy is followed and to issue suitable directions to IRCTC. The matter has been listed for further hearing on .
The Gap in Digital Access
The PIL, filed by advocate , challenges the requirement that pregnant women must physically visit a counter to claim a lower berth, while other eligible categories—such as senior citizens—can book lower berths directly through the IRCTC website and mobile app. According to the petition, the existing railway policy explicitly includes pregnant women as a category entitled to preferential lower-berth allocation, yet the IRCTC platform does not provide an equivalent online facility.
“The prohibition effectively compels the pregnant women to approach a physical Passenger Reservation System counter and undertake a process which is not imposed upon similarly situated categories enjoying preferential lower-berth facilities through the Respondent No. 3's online system,” the plea states. The petitioner argues that this creates an , forcing pregnant women to bear an additional burden that defeats the very purpose of the protective measure—namely, to ensure safer and more comfortable travel during pregnancy.
Constitutional Challenges and Suggested Solutions
Invoking Articles 14 (), 15(3) (special provisions for women and children), and 21 () of the Constitution, the petition contends that the current arrangement is unreasonable and discriminatory. It highlights that the lower-berth facility is intended to address the physical requirements associated with pregnancy, such as easier access to washrooms and reduced risk of falls. Requiring a pregnant woman to travel to a reservation counter—often during advanced stages of pregnancy—undermines the very object of the policy.
The petitioner has suggested several alternative verification mechanisms that could be implemented online: an online self-declaration, uploading a certificate from a registered medical practitioner, or booking confirmation subject to verification by the Ticket Examiner during the journey. The plea also proposes modifying the lower-berth allocation algorithm to recognize pregnant women as an eligible category, subject to berth availability, without the need for a physical visit.
Prior Communication with Authorities
Before approaching the High Court, the petitioner stated that he had raised the issue with the Railway Minister, the , and IRCTC on . IRCTC responded on , noting the suggestion for future enhancements and indicating it would be given “very serious thought.” However, no concrete steps were taken, prompting the PIL.
Court’s Observations and Legal Implications
The division bench’s observation that IRCTC is an agent of the Railways carries significant legal weight. It implies that the Railways cannot absolve itself of its policy obligations merely by outsourcing ticketing to a digital platform. If IRCTC’s system fails to implement a policy benefit, the Railways—as the principal—must ensure compliance. This reasoning could have broader implications for other public services that rely on third-party digital intermediaries.
From a legal perspective, the case raises important questions about the in the digital age. When a state policy grants a benefit to a vulnerable group, but the digital platform designed to implement that policy excludes them, the state may be held liable for creating a . The court’s insistence that “a must be implemented in a manner that advances, rather than defeats, its purpose” echoes settled on the duty of the state to ensure effective access to welfare measures.
Impact on Legal Practice and Policy
For legal practitioners, this case underscores the growing intersection of constitutional rights and digital infrastructure. It serves as a reminder that policies must be implemented with technological inclusivity in mind, especially when digital platforms become the primary mode of service delivery. The outcome could set a precedent for how courts view the obligations of government agencies and their digital partners in ensuring non-discriminatory access.
If the court directs IRCTC to modify its platform, it will require technical changes to the booking algorithm and verification process. This may involve developing a secure, user-friendly system that allows pregnant women to self-certify or upload medical documents, balancing convenience with the need to prevent fraud. The case also highlights the importance of proactive policy audits: the Railways and IRCTC could have avoided litigation by simply extending the existing online lower-berth facility to include pregnant women.
Conclusion
As the matter awaits its next hearing on , the has sent a clear message that digital transformation must not leave behind those it is meant to serve. The PIL is not just about lower berths—it is about ensuring that welfare policies remain meaningful in an increasingly online world. Legal professionals will be watching closely as the court navigates the balance between technological feasibility, administrative convenience, and .
