Ahmedabad: The porter’s number tag became a blockbuster badge of honour after adorning Amitabh Bachchan in superhit movies, but a recent Gujarat high court ruling has affirmed that the ‘coolie’ badge must follow the prosaic script of railway rules.The term ‘coolie’, though still in neutral use in India, has been flagged as offensive by both British and American English dictionaries.As for the badge, Bachchan’s character Iqbal in ‘Coolie’, turns the 786-numbered tag into a cultural and spiritual icon. Though the icon can transmit power in a movie, it turns out that it cannot be transferred in real life, with the HC dismissing a plea to acquire a purported relative’s porter badge.In this case, Shaikh alias Ghanchi Abdulhamid Abdulkarim had been seeking the transfer of licence badge No. 1838 since 2007. It was originally issued to one Taj Ismail, a licensed porter at the Kalupur railway station.After Ismail’s health deteriorated, Shaikh requested the railway authorities to transfer the badge to his name, claiming to be Ismail’s brother-in-law. His case was that Ismail had no son and had two daughters.When the railways rejected his request, Shaikh approached the HC twice — in 2013 and 2016 — and the court asked the authorities to reconsider his request.Shaikh filed a third petition in 2019, relying on Railway Board policy issued in the form of circulars in 1988 and 2009. The policy allows the transfer of a badge to certain close relatives, including a wife’s brother, in cases where the original holder becomes too old, infirm, or incapacitated.The railways opposed Shaikh’s petition, questioning his relationship with the licensed porter. It was also submitted that the change in the policy regulating the transfer of the badge now permits a porter’s wife or daughter to inherit it.It was also submitted that Ismail and his wife are no more, and their daughters did not claim the badge, which has been lying in the railways’ custody since then.Shaikh’s demand was rejected because he could not furnish enough documents to establish his relationship with Ismail.After the hearing, Justice H M Prachchhak rejected Shaikh’s plea and said, “Under such circumstances, the respondent authority decided the petitioner’s application in accordance with the policy prevailing at the time and the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent has clarified this.”The court added, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is found to be devoid of any merits and hence, deserves to be dismissed.”
