In Referring Odisha Train Tragedy Probe to CBI, Did Railway Board Jump the Gun?

An image of the Odisha train tragedy. 

(Photo: PTI)

The latest death toll in the horrific train collision in Odisha on 2 June, officially stands at 288 people. This is likely to increase, both on paper and in body count, albeit with a chasm between the two, given that the unreserved deceased travellers may again not make it to the final chart of passengers prepared by the authorities. 

With the Railway Board citing preliminary findings of a possible deliberate interference leading to the accident and referring the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), it raises pertinent questions regarding the processes involved in inquiring into train accidents and what really is the CBI doing here after all. 

For a nation glued to Crime Patrol and Savdhaan India, it is the fear of not securing systemic solutions due to the very appealing charm of conspiratorial criminal investigations, which has heralded this cynical, cautious, yet hopeful appeal to the authorities.   

What The Law Says About The Investigation Process

The Railways Act, 1989, in Chapter III provides for the appointment of a Chief  Commissioner for Railway Safety (CCRS), and other such Commissioners of Railway Safety as deemed necessary by the Central Government. 

Rules for holding inquiries into railway accidents are contained in ‘Statutory Investigation into Railway Accidents Rules -1998’ notified by the Ministry of Civil Aviation in a gazette dated 26.12.98 and another dated 06.03.99.

It is categorically stated, both in the said Rules as well as in Sections 113-114 of the Railways Act, 1989, that any accident of a passenger train which results in a loss of life shall be categorised as a “serious accident” and it is obligatory for the concerned Commissioner of Railway Safety (CRS) to inquire into the cause of the accident. 

Pertinently, as described in the Commission’s Annual Report 2021-22, whatever be the cause of a collision or a derailment leading to loss of human life, the same amounts to a “consequential train accident”.

Thus, the fatal events of the night of 2 June, for the purposes of the Railways, amount to a serious accident with loss of human life, and the law mandates that such an accident be inquired and investigated by the CRS. 

So, Why Did The Railway Board Jump The Gun?

The procedure for such an inquiry, as per the Rules cited in the Annual Report of the Commission, requires that on receipt of the intimation of occurrence of a serious accident from the concerned Railway, the CRS notifies his intention to hold an inquiry and at the same time, fixes and communicates the schedule date, time and place of inquiry. 

A formal notice of inquiry is sent to the concerned Railway with a copy to the CCRS, Railway Board and the Secretary, Civil Aviation. Notice of inquiry is also published in Newspapers to invite the general public to give evidence in the inquiry in person or through written communication to the CRS.

Thus, the process of inquiry is a transparent one and fuelled by open public participation, aimed at identifying the cause of the accident and also covers within its scope the response of the authorities post the accident. Based on the findings of the inquiry, the CRS makes recommendations to the Railway Board.

Thus emerges the question, that when such an elaborate statutory mechanism is in place to inquire into the cause of a serious train accident, why did the Railway Board not deem it fit to await the outcome of the inquiry.

In fact, to the best of one’s knowledge and from news reports, it appears that no notice for such a public inquiry as mandated by law has yet been published and publicised. 

With the Railway Board having already jumped the gun by referring the matter to CBI, the findings and recommendations of the CRS if any inquiry is conducted, will in all likelihood become an empty formality, as the same have to be placed by the CRS before the Railway Board itself for action. 

What of The Systemic Apathy & Chronic Indifference of The Authorities?

Some would argue, of course, that such recommendations are in any event not acted upon by the Railway Board, as was noted in the 2022 report of a Parliamentary panel, which also highlighted that shockingly only 8-10 percent of train accidents were being inquired into by the CRS. 

Sabotage or no sabotage, deliberate or criminally negligent, there is little doubt that there has been a massive failure in keeping with best practices, which has led to the catastrophe of 2 June.

The death toll and injuries may suggest that this is unparalleled, but the Annual Report 2021-22 of the Commission of Railway Safety suggests that there has been an increase in the graph of passenger train derailments in the last few years, and it calls for the need to invest in better safety mechanisms as well as provide adequate safety training to railway staff.

Perhaps when tragedies strike, the smallest of heads must roll and a criminal investigation would satiate the need for punishment, but the negligence that is systemic apathy and chronic indifference of the authorities will remain unpunished. 

The CBI Investigation Now Becomes a Criminal Investigation Guarded From Public View

“Sunlight is the best of disinfectants," is often said about the need for transparency to weed out wrong practices in public activities of State agents.

What this (over a) century-old adage does not countenance, unfortunately, is that the State may command enough resources to control where and how the Sun shines, and where the darkness of night prevails, turning the original disinfectant into an active agent for hiding infections. 

With a change of perspective aided by non–stop private and state-sponsored media, the public glare is no longer a check and balance against the State. It is now perceived as an audience with a view, which leads to duty being presented as a performative act.

The trigger happy decision to roll out the CBI seems nothing more than a performance at this early stage, at a time when the need of the hour is for ensuring that legal processes are allowed to take their natural course. It is no more than an expensive dressing replacing a bandaid, leading to the treatment of the wound being totally out of sight.

One fears that in a pre-general election year, the CBI is perhaps heavily overburdened and this is an addition to a long docket for the central agency. So, it might have been wiser to await the report of the Commission (which is independent of the Ministry of Railways), after conducting the inquiry.

The entire focus of the Railway Board has been to call in the CBI on the basis of some preliminary findings, bypassing the expert statutory body created with the mandate to inquire into such accidents.

The CBI investigation now becomes a criminal investigation, guarded from the public view, apart from selective leaks to friendly media outlets that will shape public opinion.

In the court of public opinion, the cacophony of a possible sabotage or human interference is drowning out reasonable apprehension highlighting systemic faults, limited investment in safety, apathy towards non-luxury trains, and lack of staff training on safety, among other long standing issues.

One hopes at least the latter issues are dealt with by the Commission of Railway Safety, as is its statutory mandate, irrespective of the deference of the Railway Board to the auto tuned singing of the caged parrot. 

(Soutik Banerjee is a Delhi-based lawyer. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author's own, The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)