Back
J&K High Court Sounds Alarm on Women's Safety in Crowded Buses
In a significant step towards addressing women's safety in public transport, the issued notice to the and others in a filed by . The PIL spotlights the stark gap between policy and practice in reserving seats for women in buses. A bench led by Chief Justice Arun Palli and comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal heard initial submissions on , and adjourned the matter to , after sought time for instructions.
Empty Seats, Real Fears: The Petitioner's Case
, appearing in person, invoked Articles 15(3), 21, and 38(1) of the to argue systemic failures in public transport safety. At the heart of the PIL is a , circular from the mandating seat reservations—seats 1-12 in large buses and 1-9 in mini-buses for women. Yet, the petitioner contends this remains "ostensibly existent" with zero ground-level enforcement.
RTI responses from the , , , and paint a grim picture: no inspections, no penalties, no public helpline, and unproven claims of RTO flying squads. Inter-departmental buck-passing is evident, with authorities shifting blame rather than acting.
Striking data from a survey of 298 women at local educational institutions underscores the urgency: 85.6% reported harassment or discomfort , and most were unaware of any complaint mechanism. Mir contrasted this with successful models in Delhi ('Pink Tickets'), Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu ('Tejswani Buses' and 'Shakti Schemes'), proving administrative will can drive reforms without amendments.
Government's Initial Response: Time to Gear Up
The respondents, represented by , accepted notice but prayed for a short adjournment to gather instructions and file a response. No substantive counter-arguments were advanced at this preliminary hearing.
Why This PIL Echoes Fundamental Rights
The petition frames non-enforcement as a violation of women's special provisions under Article 15(3) , the right to life and dignity under Article 21 , and the directive to secure social justice via Article 38(1) . No precedents were directly cited in the order, but the comparative state initiatives highlight feasible paths forward, emphasizing executive accountability over legislative hurdles.
Key Observations from the Bench
The court's order captures the petitioner's core grievances in incisive detail:
"Petitioner... underscores the systemic failure in implementing the safety measures and seat reservation for women in public transport, with reference to Article 15(3), Article 21 andas also the Circular 3/TC/2025."
"Vide Circular dated January 07, 2025, thehad issued a mandate for reserved seating, whereas the material placed on record only shows its ostensible existence. With no implementation on ground."
"Data collected from 298 women at the Local Educational Institutions revealed that 85.6% of them experienced harassment or discomfort and, in fact, majority was even unaware of any existing complaint mechanism."
"States like Delhi, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu have successfully implemented ‘Pink Tickets’, ‘Tejswani Buses’ and ‘Shakti Schemes’, through administrative intent."
Notice Issued: A Path to Accountability?
The bench's order is clear: "Notice to the respondents." Adjourned to , this interim directive compels the UT to respond, potentially paving the way for directives on inspections, helplines, and coordinated enforcement. For women commuters in Kashmir facing daily risks, it signals judicial oversight could turn policy paper into protective reality, influencing similar reforms nationwide.
