Xie Yanyi: Justice Is the Best Security Check—Report on the First Hearing of a Human Rights Lawyer’s Lawsuit Against Railway Security Checks

Because I was subjected to an illegal inspection by security personnel at Tianjin Station on September 13, 2025, I filed a tort lawsuit on December 8 with Beijing’s Haidian District Court against the three defendants: China State Railway Group Co., Ltd., China Railway Beijing Group Co., Ltd., and Tianjin Station of China Railway Beijing Group Co., Ltd. After nearly half a year, the Haidian court notified me on May 6, 2026, that the hearing would take place on May 25.

There has been an unusually large amount of rain this year. On the morning of May 25, 2026, I traveled through a light rain to the Fuxing Road Court of the Haidian Court, where the hearing was to be held. In addition to the two sets of evidence previously submitted—the first, a video recording of the incident, and the second, a screenshot of that day’s train ticket—I temporarily printed two more sets of evidence near the court: the State Council’s Approval on the Establishment of China State Railway Corporation and Sina Finance’s May 23 report, “Summary of the Chairpersons and General Managers of 18 Railway Bureaus.” Facing the three defendants in the case, the difficulty may lie in how to prevent any one of the three defendants—namely, China State Railway Group Co., Ltd., China Railway Beijing Group Co., Ltd., and Tianjin Station of China Railway Beijing Group Co., Ltd.—from getting away? In particular, the first defendant, China Railway Corporation, because I am not afraid of the defendants denying the facts or shifting the blame (for example, the opposing representative indicated a desire to add the security company as a defendant), I can completely apply for relevant witnesses and management personnel from top to bottom to appear in court (during the hearing, I raised objections to the appearance of the two representatives and demanded that the persons in charge of the three defendants—or at least the deputy general manager and department head responsible for security management—appear in court), and I can also apply to the court to obtain relevant evidence. But if the other side denies responsibility, and under the Civil Procedure Law Beijing Railway Bureau is said to be an independent legal person that should independently bear civil liability, what can be done? What if China Railway Corporation, the entity behind the scenes whose decisive role is truly at work, escapes responsibility? If the dominant force and the culprit behind the infringement are not on the table, the root cause of this infringement incident cannot truly be uncovered, and the value of the litigation will be greatly diminished! Therefore, my two sets of evidence were intended to prove that, whether in terms of personnel appointments, corporate management, the railway transportation industry’s production-chain relationships, the fact that the various units’ processes are interconnected, the current rights and responsibilities of superiors and subordinates, or the transition from the formerly semi-militarized department known as “the railway boss” to today’s special state-owned enterprise—whether considering its monopolistic, administrative, policy-oriented, public-welfare, and planning-oriented nature, as well as the problems arising from its historical transformation—the special nature of the subject and liability in this civil tort case cannot be used to conceal the true path to achieving fairness by simply reducing the illegal subject’s liability and the cost of illegality through “legal form.”

Just as I was deeply perplexed about how to break through the bottleneck in the litigation, an unexpected pleasant surprise appeared: the generous support of attorney Li Xiongbing. Attorney Li himself was repeatedly subjected to illegal security-check violations while traveling on business in the past. After seeing the news that I was appearing in court at the Haidian Court today, he came over specially despite his busy schedule and volunteered to appear as a witness. Attorney Li wrote a witness statement on the spot, attesting to his own experience of being subjected to illegal infringements repeatedly at stations in different regions. His testimony was crucial. Combined with my video recording of the incident, it not only proved the common, frequent, arbitrary, groundless, and widespread nature of the infringement (in Old Li’s words), but also strengthened the public-interest nature of this case and greatly increased the legal cost to China Railway Corporation of denying responsibility.

In addition to seeking answers under the law, I did not forget to explain to the court and the opposing representatives that we are not in opposition to one another, and that this does not involve any political issue. This lawsuit is beneficial and harmful to no one—whether individuals, the country, society, railway units, or administrative authorities. In addition to protecting human rights and preventing the proliferation of security checks, it can also help the relevant parties clarify boundaries, standardize management, conduct civilized security checks, and advance the rule of law. It is entirely constructive, useful for learning lessons from experience, and even more beneficial to the construction and development of the railway sector.

The case was originally to be heard today by Judge Xie of the Haidian Court sitting as a sole judge. However, given that the case is in the public interest, I objected to a sole-judge hearing and requested the formation of a collegial panel. After the judge adjourned and reported the matter, the court accepted my opinion and decided to form a collegial panel and schedule another hearing. The hearing was adjourned after the exchange of evidence. Justice is the best security check!

Xie Yanyi  Written on May 25, 2026