Examine the jurisdictional challenges in ensuring security on Indian Railways, given that Railways is a Union subject while policing is a State subject. What institutional mechanisms exist to bridge this gap?

Q. Examine the jurisdictional challenges in ensuring security on Indian Railways, given that Railways is a Union subject while policing is a State subject. What institutional mechanisms exist to bridge this gap? (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Railways falls under Entry 22, Union List, while police and public order are State subjects (Entries 2 and 1, State List). Consequently, the Union owns and runs the network, but prevention, detection and investigation of crime on it rests with State forces [1] — a structural split that dilutes accountability.

Jurisdictional challenges

• Divided mandate: State Governments discharge law-and-order duties on railways through the Government Railway Police (GRP)/district police; the RPF only supplements their efforts [1]. Responsibility for passenger safety is therefore shared but owned by neither.
• Overlapping legal competence: The RPF Act, 1957 constitutes RPF as an armed force of the Union for protection of railway property, passenger area and passengers [4], while offences under the Railways Act, 1989 and general criminal law are prosecuted by State machinery [5] — causing delay in FIR registration and handover.
• Moving jurisdiction: A train crosses several police districts and States within hours, complicating first response, evidence preservation and inquiry — acute in incidents like coach fires, where arson, sabotage and accidental short-circuit demand different investigating agencies.
• Resource asymmetry: GRP costs are shared with States, whose deployment competes with district policing priorities.
• Departmental silos: The Standing Committee on Railways found each department setting its own safety parameters, and urged a dedicated safety setup with a Member (Safety) [6].

Bridging mechanisms

• RPF Act, 1957 (amended 2003): statutory powers of arrest, search and seizure for railway-related offences [4].
• All India GRP Chiefs Conference: an institutionalised RPF–GRP platform on passenger security, crime mitigation and emerging threats [2].
• Joint RPF–GRP operations for vulnerable passengers, including women [3].
• Central coordination with the Home Ministry and intelligence agencies where sabotage is suspected.

Railway security is thus a test of cooperative federalism rather than of legislative competence. Institutionalising unified command protocols, shared databases and the Standing Committee's dedicated safety architecture [6] can convert overlapping jurisdictions into complementary strengths, securing the constitutional promise of Article 21 for millions of daily commuters.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Steps taken by Railways for safety & security of passengers including women passengers in trains, PIB (Ministry of Railways) — division of responsibility: GRP/district police investigate crime, RPF supplements 2. 5th All India GRP Chiefs Conference, PIB — RPF–GRP coordination platform on passenger security and emerging challenges 3. Railways Collaborates with GRP to Enhance Safety and Security for Women Passengers, PIB — joint RPF–GRP initiatives for vulnerable passengers 4. The Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 — India Code — RPF as an armed force of the Union for protection of railway property, passenger area and passengers 5. The Railways Act, 1989 — India Code — statutory framework governing railway offences and safety 6. Standing Committee on Railways, "Safety and Security in Railways" (2016) — PRS Legislative Research summary — departmental silos on safety; recommendation for a dedicated safety department and Member (Safety)