IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
CALCUTTA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. _____
of 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mrs. Chanda Bose, Advocate & Social
Activist
&
XYZ NGOs (names withheld for
protection)
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Union of India
Through the Ministry of Railways
…RESPONDENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S. No CONTENTS PAGE NO.
1. Index of Authorities III
2. Statement of Jurisdiction IX
3. Statement of Facts X
4. Statement of Issues XIII
5. Summary of Arguments XIV
6. Arguments Advanced XV
7. Prayer XXVI
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioners invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to enforce fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21. The issue
at hand involves grave violation of a foreign national’s bodily autonomy by State actors. The
Union of India and Railway Board being instrumentalities of the State are liable for inaction,
complicity and abuse of public premises.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Heena Ibrahim, a Bangladeshi national, came to India on an official assignment in December
2016. On 1st January 2017, she arrived at Howrah Station to board the Jodhpur Express.
Having a waitlisted ticket, she approached a TTE who asked her to wait in the ladies’
waiting room. Later, she was misled by touts and Railway staff and taken to Room No.102 in
Rail Yatri Niwas, booked under Railway credentials. There, she was gang-raped by five men
associated with the Railways. While trying to flee, she was again lured by a broker who
promised help but raped her again at a private residence. She was eventually rescued by
police and FIR was registered. A PIL under Article 226 was filed by a social activist and
NGOs seeking redress and accountability.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether the Union of India and Railway Board are liable under Article 226 for
compensation?
2. Whether the Right to Life under Article 21 includes protection from sexual violence in
public premises?
3. Whether the Railways failed in its duty to ensure the safety of women on railway
premises?
4. Whether public institutions require heightened accountability for crimes in State-run
facilities?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
The petitioners submit that:
• The Railway Board is liable as the crimes occurred within its premises and by its
employees.
• Article 21 ensures dignity and protection from sexual violence.
• The failure of the Railway authorities to provide safe facilities constitutes gross
negligence.
• Precedents support public law remedies, including compensation under Article 226.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. The Railway Board’s failure amounts to a breach of public duty and invites liability under
Article 226.
II. The Right to Life under Article 21 encompasses the right to live with dignity and bodily
autonomy.
III. The Railway authorities failed to screen personnel and monitor secure areas such as the
ladies’ waiting room.
IV. The state must be held to a higher standard of care in custodial and institutional settings.
Case Law: Nilabati Behera, Chandrima Das, D.K. Basu, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan.
PRAYER
In view of the above, Petitioners pray for:
• Declaration of State liability and compensation of ₹50 lakhs;
• Mandatory security upgrades in all railway premises;
• Issuance of SOPs for women's safety in public transit;
• Constitution of a Judicial Commission on railway-related crimes against women.
