Why is CRS, the body investigating the Odisha rail accident, under the Aviation Ministry

 

Investigation into the recent tragic train accident in Odisha, the deadliest train crash in India in over two decades, is being conducted by the Commissioner of Railway Safety for the south-eastern circle. Rail safety commissioners are part of the Commission of Railway Safety (CRS), a government body that acts as the railway safety authority in the country.

As the name suggests, CRS deals with matters related to safety of rail travel and operations, among some other statutory functions – inspectorial, investigatory, and advisory – as laid down in the Railways Act, 1989. Investigating serious train accidents is one of the key responsibilities of the CRS, which is headquartered in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

It is, however, worth noting that the CRS does not report to the Ministry of Railways of the Railway Board. It is, in fact, under the administrative control of the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA). The reason or principle behind this, put simply, is to keep the CRS insulated from the influence of the country’s railway establishment and prevent conflicts of interest. One needs to go back in time to understand the evolution of the CRS and its unique relationship with MoCA.
Early days of railways in India and safety oversight

The first railways in India came into being in the 1800s and were constructed and operated by private companies. At the time, the British Indian government appointed ‘consulting engineers’ for effective control and oversight of the developing railway network and operations. Their job was to ensure efficiency, economy, and safety in railway operations in India.

Later, when the British Indian government undertook construction of railways in the country, the consulting engineers were re-designated as ‘government inspectors’, and in 1883, their position was recognised statutorily. In the first decade of the twentieth century, the Railway Inspectorate was placed under the Railway Board, which was established in 1905.

As per the Indian Railway Board Act, 1905, and a notification by the then Department of Commerce and Industry, the Railway Board was entrusted with powers and functions of the government under various sections of the Railway Act and was also authorised to make rules for railway operations in India. This effectively made the Railway Board the safety controlling authority for railways in India.

Separation of safety supervision function and Railway Board – The groundwork

The Government of India Act, 1935 said that functions for securing the safety of railway operations, both for the travelling public and personnel operating the railways, should be performed by an authority independent of the federal railway authority or the Railway Board. These functions included conducting railway accident probes. But due to the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, the idea did not take off and the Railway Inspectorate continued to function under the control of the Railway Board.

In 1939, a panel headed by the then chief inspecting officer of the British Railways, A.H.L. Mount, said that the separation of the Railway Inspectorate from the Railway Board was “very desirable” as it will do away with the anomaly of the Railway Board being the “inspecting as well as the executive authority” for railway operations in India.

In its report, the panel also noted that the Railway Board was appreciative of the separation argument and “would welcome the change”.
Transfer of Railway Inspectorate from Railway Board’s control

In 1940, the Central Legislature endorsed the idea and principle of separation of the Railway Inspectorate from the Railway Board, and recommended that the senior government inspectors of the railways should be placed under the administrative control of a different authority under the government. Consequently, in May 1941, the Railway Inspectorate was separated from the Railway Board and put under the administrative control of the then Department of Posts and Air.

Since then, the Inspectorate, which was re-designated as the CRS in 1961, has been under the control of the central ministry exercising control over civil aviation in India.

https://makeprojects.com/profile/davidaferrell
https://www.jewishboston.com/profile/marlynsamuel/
https://www.projectmanagement.com/profile/marlynsamuelmarlynsamuel
https://cannabis.net/user/124771
https://www.facer.io/user/ylDR8d9XiI
https://www.kadenze.com/users/burtonelkins-burtonelkins#tab-about

Express View on Law panel’s recommendations on sedition law: Stepping backwards

 its 88-page report, the law panel lists reasons for retaining the law – as a reasonable restriction on free speech, and as a necessary legal instrument in the face of threats to India’s internal security. (Express Photo)

The Law Commission of India recommended last week that Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, the 130-year-old provision that defines and punishes sedition, must not only be retained but also strengthened with enhanced punishment. This recommendation is a step backwards. After all, it comes nearly a year after the Supreme Court had stayed operation of the law — in May 2022, the Court expressed strong reservations and indicated that it would hear arguments in favour of striking down the colonial provision that has proved to be prone to misuse by governments that seek to cramp citizens’ freedom of expression.

In its 88-page report, the law panel lists reasons for retaining the law – as a reasonable restriction on free speech, and as a necessary legal instrument in the face of threats to India’s internal security. It cites Maoist extremism, militancy, secessionist movements and ethnic conflict in the North-east.

The report quotes National Security Advisor Ajit Doval on wars against invisible armies, and on a “civil society” that can be “subverted, divided and manipulated to hurt the interest of the nation”. That formulation, which pits “civil society” against “nation”, raises serious questions in an open democracy that the panel does not ask. Nor does it engage seriously enough with criticism of the sedition provision, including concerns expressed by the Supreme Court. The panel dismisses apprehensions about the colonial-era law going against the spirit of a modern democracy in a polemical and sweeping manner: “The entire framework of the Indian legal system is a colonial legacy”, it says.

It sidesteps the fact that while the offence continues to have a place in India’s statute book, Britain itself repealed the law in 2009, by saying: “Realities differ in every jurisdiction.” On allegations of misuse, the panel exonerates the law, and passes on the blame — the “root of the problem lies in the complicity of the police”, it says. Its key recommendation is to include SC guidelines in the landmark ruling in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962) in Section 124A. While upholding its constitutionality, the SC had restricted seditious speech to that which tended to incite “public disorder”, a phrase the provision does not contain but was read into it by the Court. The panel now recommends inclusion in Section 124A of the words “tendency to incite violence or cause public disorder” and further defines it as “mere inclination to incite violence or cause public disorder rather than proof of actual violence or imminent threat to violence.” While this is aimed at addressing vagueness in the provision, the words “tendency” and “inclination” are also over-broad and vague.

After initially defending the law, the Centre had told the Court last year that it would review it. Referring to the Prime Minister’s views on shedding colonial baggage as the country marks 75 years of Independence, the Union Home Ministry in an affidavit asked the SC to defer the hearing till it is reviewed by a “competent forum.” While the law panel’s suggestion is a crucial layer in the conversation, Parliament must now step in. The Supreme Court, too, must finish what it started. Especially in polarised times when the spaces for freedom of expression and the right to dissent seem imperilled, the law on sedition is too fraught and consequential to remain riddled with a lack of clarity.

© The Indian Express (P) Ltd

First published on: 06-06-2023 at 06:10 IST

    Tags:
    Law Commission
    sedition law
    UAPA

https://www.hogwartsishere.com/1478395/
https://www.bolognafc.it/members/emogeneredmond/info/
https://www.wpanet.org/profile/what-skills-and-experience-are-necessary-for-a-ceo-job/profile
https://windowsarea.de/mitglieder/andracantrell/
https://www.castingcall.club/ruthschneider
https://www.telix.pl/profile/patstanton/