Read on Twitter
A tale of VVIP entitlement vs accidental entitlement 
: Get this, a high court judge takes a trains, gets off at a platform where it had stopped and misses to catch it back on time. He then goes and files a PIL in court against the Railways alleging he wasn't warned properly...
: Get this, a high court judge takes a trains, gets off at a platform where it had stopped and misses to catch it back on time. He then goes and files a PIL in court against the Railways alleging he wasn't warned properly...
He then whines about how rlys needs to fix the signal board and goes on to suggest that the trains should have more number of doors and bogies and also stoppage time for the trains needs to be increased. (Because of course we have a great rail network where trains are never late)
In its reply, railways say sorry but really amplw warnings with signals and horns that are audible enough are given to the passengers before departing. To his other genius suggestions railways says changes in the 167 year old network require policy level decisions...
Then comes the best part. Railways states it has a priority list for granting of lower berths in trains where VVIPs like ministers and Supreme Court/HC judges "fall very high" and have to be the first to be alloted. After VVIPs accommodated, then pregnant women and sr citizens 
Court says everything is well and good (everyone's forgotten about the judge at this point) but how can you prioritise VVIPs over pregnant women and Sr citizens. Tells the railways pregnant women, those suffering from terminal illness and sr citizens should be given top priority.
Judge 0, railways 
