IRCTC Lower Berth for Pregnant Women: Delhi HC Seeks Clarity

The Delhi High Court has asked the Railways to clarify how Pregnant Women can access the lower-berth reservation facility through IRCTC, raising questions about whether a welfare-oriented railway policy is being fully implemented through the online booking system.

A bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the existing railway reservation policy provides preferential consideration for lower berths to pregnant women. However, the court noted that the online IRCTC platform does not appear to provide a mechanism through which an eligible pregnant passenger can seek the benefit while booking a ticket.

The court issued notice to the authorities on a public interest litigation filed by Anunay Sahay and listed the matter for further hearing on September 30.

The case brings a broader question into focus: when a public welfare policy is designed to make Travel more accessible or comfortable for a particular group, can that benefit be effectively delivered if the digital system used by most passengers does not provide a way to request it?

Delhi High Court Questions the IRCTC Booking Process

The court’s observations came during the hearing of a PIL concerning the availability of lower berths for pregnant women through online railway reservations.

The petition argues that the existing online booking process creates an additional barrier for pregnant passengers. While the railway policy provides for preferential consideration for lower berths, the petitioner contends that the IRCTC platform does not allow a pregnant woman to directly seek the facility during online booking.

Instead, according to the petition, a passenger seeking the facility is required to visit a physical railway reservation counter and provide a certificate from a registered medical practitioner.

This distinction between the policy and the booking mechanism became central to the court’s consideration of the matter.

The bench observed that IRCTC appears to function as an agent of the Railways for reservations and said the Railways therefore has a responsibility to ensure that its reservation policy is complied with through the platform.

The court expected the Centre and Railway Board to take appropriate steps to ensure that the policy is followed and that suitable directions are issued to IRCTC.

Why Lower Berths Matter for Pregnant Passengers

The request for a lower berth is not simply a matter of passenger preference. Pregnancy can make climbing to and from an upper or middle berth more difficult, particularly during longer journeys.

A lower berth can reduce the need for a pregnant passenger to climb and can make it easier to access the berth and move around the compartment. The petition argues that the facility is intended to address the physical requirements associated with pregnancy and enable safer and more comfortable travel.

This is the underlying rationale behind the petition’s challenge to the current online booking arrangement.

If a passenger WHO qualifies for a welfare measure must complete an additional offline procedure to access it, the petitioner argues that the procedure itself can undermine the purpose of the measure.

The issue is therefore not simply whether lower berths are available under railway policy. It is also about whether the process for accessing that benefit is practical and consistent with the way railway tickets are increasingly booked.

The Petition’s Argument Against an Offline Requirement

The PIL challenges the requirement for an eligible pregnant woman to visit a reservation counter after choosing to book her journey through the online system.

According to the petition, the lower-berth facility exists to address the specific needs of pregnant passengers. Requiring such a passenger to undertake an additional physical process, it argues, can defeat the purpose of the protective measure.

The petitioner has therefore sought a mechanism within the digital reservation system that would allow an eligible pregnant passenger to identify herself as such and request allocation against the applicable lower-berth facility.

The proposed mechanism would still be subject to verification and berth availability. In other words, the petition does not necessarily seek an unconditional guarantee that every pregnant passenger will receive a lower berth. Instead, it calls for the online system to provide a way to request the benefit provided under the railway policy.

Policy and Digital Implementation Are at the Centre of the Case

The case highlights a common problem that can arise when an existing public policy moves into a digital environment.

A policy may establish a particular entitlement or preferential arrangement, but the technology used to implement that policy also needs to recognise the relevant eligibility criteria. If the digital interface does not provide an appropriate option, passengers may be unable to access a benefit even when the underlying policy remains in force.

That is the issue the Delhi High Court is examining in the context of pregnant women’s railway reservations.

The court’s observations indicate that it is looking beyond the existence of the policy itself and considering whether the reservation system enables the policy to operate as intended.

This distinction is important because online ticketing has become a major part of railway reservations. A system that requires passengers to move back to an offline process for a particular welfare facility can create an additional procedural hurdle.

IRCTC’s Role in Railway Reservations

IRCTC plays a central role in India‘s online railway ticketing system. The Delhi High Court observed during the hearing that IRCTC appears to be an agent of the Railways.

That observation is significant to the legal question before the court because the petition is not limited to the design of a private commercial website. It concerns the implementation of a railway reservation policy through the digital platform used to book tickets.

The court therefore placed responsibility on the Railways to ensure that its policy is properly implemented through the relevant reservation mechanism.

The Centre and the Railway Board have been asked to respond to the plea, while the court has indicated that appropriate directions may need to be issued concerning the implementation of the policy on IRCTC.

What the Court Has Asked the Railways to Clarify

The immediate development is that the Delhi High Court has sought the Railways’ position on the issue. The court has not, at this stage, issued a final ruling determining exactly how the online booking system must be changed.

The authorities will have an opportunity to respond to the petition and explain the existing reservation arrangements and the reasons for the current procedure.

The next hearing is scheduled for September 30, when the court is expected to consider the matter further.

This distinction between an observation and a final order is important. The court has expressed concern about the apparent gap between the preferential reservation policy and the online booking mechanism, but the final legal and administrative outcome remains to be determined.

Availability Would Still Matter

Even if an online request mechanism is introduced, the availability of lower berths would remain an important practical consideration.

Railway coaches have a limited number of lower berths, and those berths may be subject to different reservation categories and passenger requirements. A digital option to identify pregnancy and request a lower berth would therefore not necessarily mean that a lower berth could be guaranteed in every booking.

The petition itself recognises this by proposing that allocation should remain subject to verification and availability.

This distinction could become relevant as the court examines how any potential digital mechanism should work. The system would need to balance the preferential facility for eligible passengers with the limited number of lower berths available on individual trains and services.

The Verification Question

Another issue raised by the petition is how eligibility could be verified within an online booking system.

The current procedure described in the petition involves a certificate from a registered medical practitioner for passengers seeking the facility through a physical reservation counter. Moving the request into an online environment could require the Railways to determine how such verification should take place.

A digital system could potentially require supporting documentation or another form of verification, but the precise mechanism would be a matter for the Railways and any directions ultimately issued by the court.

The challenge is to create a process that is accessible without removing safeguards designed to ensure that the preferential facility is used by eligible passengers.

Could the Case Affect Other Digital Welfare Policies?

The dispute has implications beyond railway berths because it illustrates a wider question about the relationship between public welfare policies and digital services.

Government services are increasingly accessed through websites and mobile applications. When a policy is designed before a service becomes fully digital, the original rules may not always translate neatly into an online interface.

A policy can therefore remain formally available while becoming difficult to access for people who rely on digital services.

The Delhi High Court case brings this implementation question into sharp focus. If a benefit is intended to assist a specific group because of particular circumstances, the booking or application process needs to account for those circumstances.

At the same time, any digital redesign must address practical issues such as verification, availability, misuse prevention and integration with existing reservation rules.

Why the Case Matters for Pregnant Women Travelling by Train

For pregnant passengers, the difference between an online option and an offline requirement can be particularly relevant when planning a journey.

A passenger who normally books tickets through IRCTC may expect to complete the entire reservation process digitally. If a particular facility can only be requested at a physical counter, that passenger must make an additional trip and obtain the required documentation before completing the booking under the applicable procedure.

The petition argues that this additional step is inconsistent with the purpose of providing a protective travel facility in the first place.

The court’s intervention places the practical accessibility of that policy under examination.

The case could ultimately lead to greater clarity about how preferential lower-berth arrangements for pregnant passengers should be implemented through online reservations, although the exact outcome will depend on the Railways’ response and the court’s eventual directions.

The Bigger Issue: Making Public Policies Work Online

The dispute between policy and platform is at the heart of the case.

The Railways may have a policy that recognises the needs of pregnant passengers, but passengers experience that policy through the reservation system. If the system does not allow them to indicate their eligibility or request the relevant facility, there can be a gap between what the policy intends and what passengers can actually access.

That gap becomes more significant as digital booking becomes an increasingly important part of everyday travel.

The Delhi High Court’s observations suggest that implementing a welfare policy cannot necessarily stop at issuing the policy itself. The mechanisms through which passengers access the benefit also need to be capable of delivering it.

For the Railways, the challenge is likely to involve finding a workable digital process that preserves the existing eligibility requirements while making the facility accessible through online reservations.

What Happens on September 30

The case is scheduled to return before the Delhi High Court on September 30. Until then, the Railways and other authorities have an opportunity to present their position on the concerns raised by the PIL.

The court’s eventual directions will determine whether changes are required in the way pregnant passengers seek lower berths through IRCTC and, if so, how such a system should operate.

The outcome could clarify the relationship between the existing railway reservation policy and the digital booking platform through which passengers access railway services.

Delhi HC Case Highlights a Digital Gap in Passenger Welfare

The Delhi High Court’s intervention has brought attention to a practical gap between a railway reservation policy for pregnant women and the way that benefit can reportedly be accessed through IRCTC.

The Railways’ existing policy provides preferential consideration for lower berths, while the petition argues that the online booking system does not provide an equivalent mechanism for pregnant women to request the facility. Instead, the petition says, eligible passengers are required to use a physical reservation counter and provide medical certification.

The court has asked the authorities to clarify their position and has indicated that the Railways should take appropriate steps to ensure that its policy is followed through the IRCTC platform.

The case is not simply about where a passenger sits on a train. It raises a broader question about how public welfare measures should function when services move from physical counters to digital platforms.

For pregnant passengers, a lower berth can make train travel more manageable by reducing the need to climb to an upper berth. The legal proceedings now focus on whether the system through which railway tickets are booked should provide a practical way for eligible passengers to seek that facility.

With the matter listed for September 30, the Railways’ response and the court’s subsequent directions will be important in determining whether the current online reservation process changes.