After Balasore (2023), assess India's railway passenger safety and compensation framework. Is insurance a substitute for, or a complement to, safety investment?

The June 2023 Balasore (Odisha) accident exposed two kinds of weakness: in preventing rail accidents and in compensating victims. A writ petition filed after the accident led the Supreme Court, in October 2026, to order that tickets sold at counters carry the same travel insurance as online bookings [1]. The framework is improving. But it still focuses more on paying after a crash than on preventing one.

Safety framework: persistent gaps

• Track upkeep: derailments were about 69% of accidents in 2017–21. Poor track maintenance was the biggest single cause [2].
• Inspections: Track Recording Car inspections fell short by 30–100% [2].
• Safety fund: the Railways put only ₹5,324.62 crore of their own money into the Rashtriya Rail Sanraksha Kosh, against ₹25,000 crore planned. Another ₹823.14 crore of the fund went to non-priority works [3].

Compensation framework: strengths and gaps

• No-fault liability: under Sections 124/124A of the Railways Act, 1989, victims are paid without having to prove anyone's fault. Claims are decided by the Railway Claims Tribunal.
• Unequal insurance: optional insurance was sold only to online buyers, for a small premium. Counter buyers were left out [4]. This raises an Article 14 problem, because passengers on the same train face the same risk.
• Judicial correction: the Court found "no progress" even after giving "sufficient time." It set a deadline of 27 October 2026 and made the Railway Board directly liable [1]. This is an example of continuing mandamus, where the Court keeps supervising compliance.
• Remaining gaps: it is unclear whether unreserved (UTS) passengers are covered [1]. Many poor families also have no nominee on record.

Insurance: a complement, not a substitute

• Insurance pays money after a death. It does nothing to stop derailments caused by track defects [2].
• It only adds to statutory compensation. Treating it as a replacement would let safety spending be cut while premiums keep coming in.
• As a complement, it gives families quick money and treats all passengers equally, however they book.

Balasore shows that preventing accidents and compensating victims are two parts of one duty under Article 21. The way forward has five steps. Reserve RRSK money for top-priority (Priority-I) works. Expand automatic train protection (Kavach). Make insurance automatic and free at counters. Record nominees at the counter. Have the Railways file claims themselves after an accident. Insurance should sit underneath safe tracks as a safety net, not replace them. This would advance the right to life and SDG 11.2 (safe transport).