The Delhi High Court.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to allow persons, who had missed their train owing to the February 15 stampede, to be impleaded as parties in a PIL over the tragic event at the New Delhi Railway Station.
A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked them to avail "personal" remedies such as a lawsuit for the redressal of their grievances, including damages.
The counsel for the applicants said their request to the authorities, for a refund of their tickets after having "escaped" the stampede, was not entertained.
The court, however, said, "That is a personal cause of action. Take recourse to remedies under the law. Why should we permit you to intervene in this matter? It is a public interest litigation (PIL). You are people who say they could not board the train and are entitled to compensation. That gives rise to a personal course of action." The court observed the scope of the PIL was on the implementation of certain legal provisions on crowd and passenger management, and it had "nothing to do with the incident" as such.
"It will open a flood gate. We will not be doing justice to the case. We see what you are saying. It will give rise to personal tort, not a PIL.. We will not allow you to implead here," the bench said.
The court permitted the applicants to withdraw their plea and granted them liberty to take appropriate remedy in law.
At least 18 people were killed on February 15 in the overnight stampede at the packed New Delhi Railway Station which witnessed a surge of passengers waiting to board trains for Prayagraj -- where the Maha Kumbh is underway -- on platform number 14 and 15 of the station.
Petitioner Arth Vidhi said in its PIL that the tragic incident, which claimed 18 lives and left 15 injured, revealed "gross mismanagement" and failure of administration.
On February 19, the court asked the Railways to examine the fixing of maximum passengers and sale of platform tickets -- issues raised in the PIL, and sought an affidavit giving details of the decision taken by it on these issues.