Copy of PIL against subsidized alcohol in defence forces

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No-                          of 2013 (PIL-Civil)

Amitabh Thakur and another                                                 Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and another                                                      Respondents

INDEX

S No	Description of documents relied upon		Page No
		From	To
1.	List of Dates and Events (separate)	Separate
2.	Memo of Writ Petition
3.	Photo Identity of the petitioner
4.	Affidavit

 Lucknow                                                                 Dr Nutan Thakur
Dated-    16/08/2013                                          Petitioner in Person                                                                                                        # 94155-34525

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No-                          of 2013 (PIL-Civil)

Amitabh Thakur                                                                           Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and another                                                      Respondents

                             LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

S No               Date                                                   Event                       

1.     1947                                     India becomes Independent

2.     1949                                     Central Reserve Police Act comes

3.     1950                                                 Constitution of India promulgated

4.     1950                                     Army Act and Air Force Act come

5.     1957                                     Navy Act promulgated

6.     1968                                     Border Security Force Act comes

7.     1968                                     All India Services Conduct Rules come

In our country, while the Army Act 1950, Air Force Act 1950, Navy Act 1957, Central Reserve Police Act 1947, Border Security Force 1968 make intoxication by its force members a serious criminal offence and the All India Services Conduct Rules 1968 makes intoxication a serious misconduct, yet the Defence forces (Indian Army, Air Force and Indian Navy) and various paramilitary forces (Central Reserve Police Force, Border Security Force, Indo Tibetan Border Police, Seema Suraksha Bal etc) provide highly subsidized alcoholic drinks to its members which is draining the tax-payers money which could be used for other much more important works and is also promoting drunkenness in these forces, is making some of these personnel abjectly wasteful and alcoholic, is having adverse effects on their families, is making them suspicious and susceptible to bad company in public, is making them less effective functionally by harping their working abilities and is also discriminatory even within the ranks and files, without any rhyme, reason or logic.

Hence this Writ Petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.       

         

Lucknow                                                                      Dr Nutan Thakur
Dated-    16/08/2013                                              Petitioner in Person                                                                                                              # 94155-34525

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No-             of 2013 (PIL-Civil)

1.     Amitabh Thakur, aged about 45 years, s/o Sri T N Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

2.     Dr Nutan Thakur, aged about 40 years, w/o Sri Amitabh Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-------Petitioners

Versus

1.     Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi-110001

2.     Union of India through Secretary. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi-110001 ------------            Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His other Hon’ble companion Judges of the aforesaid Court:

The humble petition of the above named petitioner most respectfully begs to submit as under:

1.     That by means of this petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners are invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court vested with it through Article 226 of the Constitution to file this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with a prayer to kindly issue a writ of mandamus to the Respondents, Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs to get detailed studies conducted by a High level committee consisting necessarily of a few renowned social activists among others, as regards the currently prevalent provision of subsidized alcoholic drinks/beverages/liquors to the Defence personnel and members of the Paramilitary forces and make a re-analysis and re-evaluation in this regards so as to either completely stop this practice or to reduce it to the minimum functional level, strictly as per the environmental and functional requirements.

The petitioners declare that they have not filed any other Writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court either at Allahabad or its Lucknow bench pertaining to the subject matter and/ or for the relief prayed for in the instant writ petition. It is further declared that in respect of the same subject, no caveat notice has been received by the petitioners. They also declare that to the best of their knowledge and their search, there is no pronouncement as regards the above issues being presented through this Writ Petition either by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or this Hon’ble Court.

2.     That this is a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being filed with the purpose of undertaken a detailed study in regards to the current practice of providing highly subsidized alcoholic drinks to defence personnel and paramilitary personnel in India so as to make a truthful and accountable reassessment and reevaluation of this matter and to either completely eliminate this system of providing highly subsidized alcoholic drinks or to reduce it to the minimum requirement as per the required functional needs.

3.     That the PIL is being filed because the petitioners feel that the present system of providing highly subsidized alcoholic drinks to the defence and paramilitary force personnel is not only draining the public exchequer in an unwarranted manner in a completely unproductive and counter-productive activity which could have been used for many other much needed purposes, but it also knowingly or unknowingly promoting alcoholism and Bar-culture in Defence forces and paramilitary forces, which has the possibilities of making alcoholics and alcohol addicts in these forces, which has adverse effects on the families of these defence and paramilitary forces and which also makes these defence and paramilitary force personnel sensitive to unwarranted public contact with people who befriend them solely for cheap drinks, at the same time adversely affecting their functioning.

4.     That this PIL is being filed because as far the petitioners can personally understand and as far as they could gather through detailed discussions with people in defence and paramilitary forces, these provisions of subsidized alcoholic drinks are having many adverse effects on these personnel and their families and has been artificially imposed there with hardly any functional or job requirement or any other benefit accruing out of these. It has also come to the petitioners’ knowledge, by members of the defence forces itself, that subsidized supply of alcoholic drinks and open Bar culture in Defence forces and paramilitary forces also has the ill-effect of making a substantial number of drunkards in these services who functioning abilities, reflexes and responses get slowed due to more than normal persistent use of alcohols, which has the detrimental effects on the security and safety of the entire nation.

5.     That Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edition) defines public interest as: “Something in which the public, the community at large has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, state or national Government”. Similarly, an American journalist Walter Lippman in The Public Philosophy (1955) wrote, "Public interest is generally taken to mean a commonly accepted good. Public interest may be presumed to be what men would choose if they saw clearly, thought rationally, acted disinterestedly and benevolently”. It can be easily seen that the issue being presented is associated with public exchequer, the betterment of the defence forces and also the security of the entire Nation. Thus the matter concerns every person of the Nation.

6.     That this being a PIL, in pursuance of Rule 1, subrule (3A) of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 the petitioners find it relevant to present some facts regarding their own credibility. Petitioner no 1 is an officer of the Indian Police Service, Uttar Pradesh Cadre though he is filing this Writ Petition in his individual capacity as a concerned citizen of this Nation. He is also concerned with various social issues and has filed WP No 3489 of 2012 (PIL-MB) as regards the role of Intermediaries in the Information Technology Act 2000 and WP No 3153 of 2012 (PIL-MB) as regards the legal and administrative status of the Board of Cricket Control for India (BCCI W P No 7596 of 2012 (PIL- Civil) along with petitioner No 2, his wife. He is also striving for formation of a Unified Police Association for all policemen, right from the Constable to the DGP and filed two Writ Petitions which allege discrimination between superior and subordinate officers in Para Military forces like the PAC, CRPF etc. He recently filed a PIL to bring the CB-CID, Vigilance and other State investigative agencies out of government control being done presently against the provisions of law. He is a complete teetotaler who has seen lives of many of his batch-mates and friends in IIT Kanpur and a few in the Indian Police Service getting completely ruined by uncontrolled use of alcoholic drinks and hence he strongly believes that the supply of highly subsidized alcoholic drinks to the extremely sensitive defence and paramilitary forces is something is detrimental in all aspects and needs to be stopped immediately.

7.     That petitioner No 2 is a social activist and freelance journalist who wants to genuinely and positively contribute to the society in all possible ways. She works primarily in the field of transparency and accountability in governance, Human Rights and assisting in the enforcement of Rule of law. The matter being presented here is primarily related with transparency and accountability in governance and Human Rights.  The petitioner has filed a very large number of important Public Interest Litigations which include one (Writ Petition No 9761 M/B of 2010) when the Commonwealth Games were going to be inaugurated by the Prince of England while the President of India had to remain a silent spectator in the ceremony,  WP No 2425 of 2012 (PIL-MB) about the delay in deciding over the Arms license application, WP No 2589 of 2012 (PIL-MB) about the Development Authorities harassing people in the name of illegal colonies, WP No 1440 of 2011 about the vacancy in UP Hindi Sansthan, WP No 2608 of 2011 (M/B) to declare the provisions of section 9 of this UP Act No. 16 of 1976 ultra vires to the provisions of constitution, WP No 3028 of 2011 (PIL-MB) about exorbitant rise of Airfares during emergency periods, WP No 1361 of 2012 (M/B)  as regards the “Model Code Of Conduct For The Guidance Of Political Parties And Candidates” issued by the Election Commission of India. WP No 3489 of 2012 (PIL-MB)  as regards the role of Intermediaries in the Information Technology Act 2000 and WP No 3153 of 2012 (PIL-MB) as regards the legal and administrative status of the Board of Cricket Control for India (BCCI).  It was purely on the basis of her works that the petitioner was chosen for the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP), a professional exchange program funded by the U.S. Department of State, whose purpose is to help build mutual understanding between citizen leaders of the U.S. and other countries. This is what the website Hill Post says about the petitioner- “Nutan Thakur is one of the few people in our society who likes to ‘walk the talk’. For her, change is a long process that requires consistent efforts” and that- “Nutan Thakur is indeed an empowered Indian – well aware of her rights, and duties.” The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation W P No 7596 of 2012 (PIL- Civil) where she prayed to take necessary steps to control the exorbitant prices of these drugs. She also filed a Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court related with the alleged corrupt activities of Zakir Hussein Memorial Trust with Union Minister Sri Salman Khurshid as its Chairman. She filed a Writ Petition as regards improper appointment of Station Officers in the police stations of Uttar Pradesh and the alleged corruption related with this process, which this Hon’ble Court took very seriously. She filed a PIL for adoption of two child norm to control the severe problem of population explosion where this Hon’ble Court also showed its concern towards this problem. The petitioner filed another Writ Petition for installing CCTV in women lockups in the police stations for the safety of arrested women in police stations. She filed a WP No 1061 of 2013 (M/B) in this Hon’ble Court where she challenged the appointment process of various State Government Commissions etc including the way Sri K C Pandey was made the Vice Chairman of Ganna Sansthan despite being an accused in a very serious case. She filed WP No 1587 of 2013 for formation of Children Courts under the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act 2012 and another PIL for creation of Child Commission in UP. Very recently she filed a PIL for filling the vacant posts of the UP Human Rights Commission. This list is not complete and there are many other such PILs filed by the petitioner, most of which have been entertained and taken very positively by this Hon’ble Court.

8.     That the petitioners state on oath that the public cause they are seeking to espouse through this Writ Petition is to insure that the hard-earned public exchequer is not wasted on unnecessary and unwarranted things like providing subsidized alcoholic drinks to the defence and paramilitary personnel, which seems to have no use for their functional requirement and on the contrary, seems to be counterproductive for the personal and family well-being of these persons. The petitioners put it on oath that they are not filing this PIL nor have they filed any other PIL for any ulterior motive save the stated one nor have they received a single penny through any backdoor activity while filing these PILs. They state on oath that they have no personal or private interest in the matter and as far as they know there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or this Hon’ble High Court on the specific questions raised here. They put it on oath that the result of the Litigation will not lead to any undue gain to them or anyone associated with them or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or to the State.

9.     That coming to the matter of the PIL, every Indian Defence forces (Indian Army, Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy) personnel is entitled to a liquor (alcoholic drinks) quota at subsidized cost every month. This quota is fixed as per rank and can be drawn monthly on a smart card. As per the petitioner’s information gathered from reliable sources, non-commissioned officers get a quota of subsidized drinks of 4 bottles of whisky/rum/gin/ wine or beer every month while officers up to the rank of Brigadier are entitled to 10 and it is 14 bottles for more senior officers. This quota cannot be carried forward.

10.                       That India must be one of the few countries in the world to have a liquor quota for its   officers and soldiers.  The genesis of this quota is from the days of the British Raj when the British officer serving in India away from home was given a certain amount of alcoholic drinks free at subsidized cost.

11.                       That after India became free the Government of India decided to continue with liquor quota for the officers and soldiers. According, as per the petitioner’s information, the following were incorporated- (a) A bar day was set up twice a week for the defence force members. Two large pegs of rum at subsidized rates was made available to the personnel. Earlier only Rum was served to them but now a limited quantity of whisky is also available. An officer is detailed to supervise the bar day and he ensures that not more than 2 pegs are consumed by an individual. But there are cases on the sly of individuals who are non-drinkers giving their quota to drinkers. The bar day is only for bachelors who reside in the mess. (b) The system of bar days is ingrained into the Indian armed forces and the timings and dates of the bar days are published in the Station Routine Orders

12.                       That married personnel from the ranks are entitled from 2 to 4 bottles of whisky/rum as per rank per month at subsidized cost from the canteen stores department (CSD) liquor counter. They can collect their quota by showing their smart card and take it home. Officers are given special privileges as far as liquor is concerned. All officers up to the rank of Brigadier were earlier entitled to 12 units of liquor per month. One unit is equivalent to one bottle of hard liquor like whisky/ Gin/Rum/ wine or 4 bottles of beer. This is now reduced to 10 units per month. An officer can also draw scotch against his quota of 10 bottles. Officers of the rank of general and above are entitled to 14 units per month.

13.                       That it may kindly be noted that the liquor made available to service personnel is devoid of excise, sales tax and VAT. The most heavily subsidized is rum which is available at ¼ of the price in the open market. In addition to the monthly liquor quota officers can also enjoy drinks at the various services clubs. This is   in addition to the CSD quota.

14.                       That before bringing this issue before this Hon’ble Court, the petitioners had long and detailed discussion, with many defence and paramilitary personnel, both serving and retired, belonging to various ranks.

15.                       That a retired Lt Colonel, who lives in immediate neighbourhood of the petitioners, told them that he did not take alcohol at the time he joined Indian Army. He got used to alcoholic drinks only in the Indian Army. The reason was that he saw everyone around him taking alcoholic drinks. Since the Bar culture was quite free and open and alcohol was widely in supply at very subsidized rates, he and many of his young batch-mates in the National Defence Academy started taking alcohol. The culture of peer pressure was also responsible for his taking to drinks. But the main reason for his and many other’s getting initiated to drinks was that there was widespread, easy and highly subsidized supply of alcoholic drinks. He said that due to this, even after his retirement in 1987, he is still regularly using alcoholic drinks which now cost him around three thousand years. He told that the whiskey that he generally buys costs him around Rs. 125, while its market rate is around Rs. 200. Similarly scotch whisky which costs him Rs. 800 costs around Rs. 1200 to 1300 in the market. 

16.                       That another serving Air force officer told the petitioners that the highly subsidized alcohol is a huge menace to the defence forces. Because of this, many of his friends have taken to alcohol. There are at least two of his close friends who have become completely alcoholic and have almost ruined themselves. He also narrated some incidences in which the defence personnel get drunk and abuse/beat their wife and family members in drunken states.

17.                       That husband of a serving lady Army officer told the petitioners that a brand called “Blender pride whisky” which costs the defence personnel Rs. 250 costs around Rs. 500 outside, another brand “Teacher’s 50” costs him Rs. 813 while the market price is Rs. 1600, “Antiquity blue” costs him Rs. 340 while the market rate is Rs. 750 and “VAT69” costs him Rs. 700 and the market price is around Rs. 1400

18.                       That previously the paramilitary forces, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Police Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Seema Suraksha Bal (SSB) used to get their quota of subsidized alcoholic drinks from the Central Supply Department of Defence forces but now they have their own Central Police Canteens (CPS). A relatively recent order, the alleged "improvement" of central police canteens on the lines of similar facilities provided to the Defence forces, ensured that the chiefs and Director Generals (DGs) of these paramilitary forces like CRPF, BSF, CISF, ITBP and SSB will have "no limit" to obtain liquor henceforth.

19.                       As per the information provided to the petitioners from the insiders of these paramilitary forces, a new quota system has also been formulated for other officers and junior ranks of these forces to obtain liquor varieties like Whisky, Rum, Vodka and Beer amongst others from the vast network of police canteens spread across various formations of these forces in the country. As per the petitioner’s information, liable to be verified, while officials in the ranks of Special DGs and Additional DGs can have 14 bottles, Inspector Generals (IGs) and Deputy Inspector Generals (DIGs) can have 12 bottles, all officers upto the rank of Commandants 10 bottles, Inspectors and Sub-inspectors--six bottle and constabulary ranks can have 4 bottles during the same period

20.                       That thus the facts that emerge from the above are that-

(a)                Both the Defence forces and Paramilitary provide highly subsidized alcoholic drinks to its personnel

(b)               Subsidy in these alcoholic drinks are  provided from the public exchequer, so that the taxes which could have gone into other constructive works, much needed in this poor country

(c)                This subsidy is extremely rank-dependent and hierarchical in nature. While in defence forces, the non-commissioned officers get 4 bottles/units of alcoholic drinks per month, the senior officers get 10 bottles. In para-military forces, the position seems to be even more hilarious. As stated earlier, Special DGs and Additional DGs can possibly have 14 bottles, IGs and DIGs 12 bottles, all officers upto the rank of Commandants 10 bottles, Inspectors and Sub-inspectors- six bottle and constabulary 4 bottles during the same period.

21.                       That thus for these ranks and files to have their cheap drinks, it is the people of this Nation who are paying the Bill.

22.                       That there can be no denial that defence forces and para-military forces are very special in nature and their needs and requirements cannot be equated with that of every other service. These forces do have to perform very different and difficult works and they need to be treated very specially by the Nation and the petitioners also have utmost respect and regard to these forces for their very special job and the great service being rendered by them to the Nation.

23.                       That thus if these people are provided subsidized food items, home-items, vehicles and/or other substances of different needs, the petitioners have nothing against it. In fact the petitioners strongly endorse such moves and measures because the defence and paramilitary forces are true saviours of this nation and the nation in turn needs to provide them and their family members everything that would make their life better, other than providing each and every bit for their functional requirements.

24.                       That there might be other people who would treat these defence and paramilitary force personnel as being similar to other government employees who are doing their service and are getting their salaries and perks in return, to the petitioners this is an extremely myopic view of looking at things. To them, the services rendered by these people goes much beyond the realm of mere routine service, it comes in the realm of basic structural functioning because the mere existence of the nation, its safety and security lies in the hands of the defence and paramilitary forces. It is these people who guard the nation in the most difficult terrain in the most hostile environments despite extreme dangers to their personal lives. Hence, the defence and paramilitary forces need all the love, affection and care and the petitioners strongly endorse it.

25.                       That thus if there is a need for bullet-proof jackets, good shoes, newer equipments or anything else, it must be provided immediately. Simultaneously, free or subsidized highly nutritious ration of the best possible quality and other supportive household goods that go on to aid and support their families is also most welcome. But what about alcohol?

26.                       That the petitioners are complete teetotalers, yet from their personal experience they can say that they have never ever missed non-use of alcohol. On the contrary, they always feel better placed because of their non-drinking habits as they do not have to spend huge money on alcoholic beverages or in searching for friends who can make arrangements for free alcoholic drinks.  In the same way, they cannot think of one positive virtue and need of alcohol for the defence and paramilitary forces personnel. While the petitioners are not researchers in the field of alcoholic drinks, yet they are unable to find any single virtue or need of alcohol in the functional requirement of the defence and paramilitary forces. On the contrary, they have universally heard that alcoholic drinks might be necessary in such western nations where the average temperature in quite low so as to keep the body warm, but they are of little use in an extremely warm nation like India. The petitioners have often heard that more than average use of alcohol proves extremely dangerous and detrimental to health.

27.                       That this must have been the reason for the Constitution makers to have introduced Article 47 as one of the important Directive Principles of governance- “Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health.- The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.” 

28.                       That the words of Mahatma Gandhi, Father of the Nation, also come to mind- “Alcohol ruins one physically, morally, intellectually and economically. Alcohol makes a man forget himself; and while its effects last, he becomes utterly incapable of doing anything useful. Those who take to drinking, ruin themselves and ruin their people. They lose all sense of decency and propriety.”

29.                       That even in the statutes dealing with the Defence force and paramilitary personnel, intoxication has been considered a serious criminal offence.

30.                       That thus as per section 48 of the Army Act 1950-“Intoxication- (1) Any person subject to this Act who is found in a state of intoxication, whether on duty or not, shall, on conviction by court- martial, if he is an officer, be liable to be cashiered or to suffer such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned; and, if he is not an  officer, be liable, subject to the provisions of sub- section (2), to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.  (2) Where an offence of being intoxicated is committed by a person other than an officer when not on active service or not on duty, the period of imprisonment awarded shall not exceed six months.

31.                       That as per section 34 of the Army Act 1950- “ Offences in relation to the enemy and punishable with death. Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say,- (k) being a sentry in time of war or alarm, sleeps upon his post

32.                       That as per section 36 of the above Act- “Offences punishable more severely on active service than at other times. Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say,- (c) being a sentry sleeps upon his post, or is intoxicated.”

33.                       That similar punishments are prescribed in section 34(k), 36(c) and 48 of the Air Force Act 1950

34.                       That as per section 50 of the Navy Act 1957-“ Drunkenness- (1)    Every person subject to naval law who is guilty of drunkenness shall, if the offence is committed on active service be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or such other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned and in other case be punished with imprisonment  for a term which may extend to six months or such other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned.  (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to be guilty of drunkenness if owing to the influence of alcohol or any drug whether alone or in combination with any other circumstance, he is unfit to be entrusted with his duty or with any duty which he may be called upon to perform or behaves in a disorderly manner or in a manner likely to bring discredit to the naval service.”

35.                       That as per section 10 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949- “Every member of the force who- (a) is in a state of intoxication when on, or after having been warned for, any duty or on parade or on the line of march.”

36.                       That as per section 14 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 –“Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say: (c) being a sentry sleeps upon his post, or is intoxicated shall, on conviction by a Security Force Court, be liable to suffer death or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.”

37.                       That as per section 26 of the the Border Security Force Act –“Any person subject to this Act who is found in a state of intoxication, whether on duty or not, shall, on conviction by a Security Force Court, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.”

38.                       That thus one finds that on one hand these defence and paramilitary forces take intoxication/drunkenness very seriously- to an extent that they make it a very serious criminal offence and on the other hand, ludicrously they are themselves providing the weapons of intoxication and drunkenness by providing ample amount of alcoholic drinks at highly subsidized rates. This comes as being completely contradictory and illogical.

39.                       That similarly for the Indian Police Service officers who are there in sufficiently large numbers in the Paramilitary forces, there are the All India Services Conduct Rules 1968 where Rule 20 says-“Consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs- A member of the Service shall- 20(a) strictly abide by any law relating in intoxicating drinks or drugs in force in any area in which he may happen to be for the time being;  20(b) not be under the influence of any intoxicating drink or drug during the course of his duty and shall also take due care that the performance of his duties at any time is not affected in any way by the influence of such drink or drug;  20.(bb) not consume any intoxicating drink or drug in a public place; 20(c) not appear in a public place in a state of intoxication; 20(d) not use such drinks or drugs to excess.  Explanation.— For the purpose of this rule, ‘public place’ means any place or premises (including a conveyance) to which the public have or are permitted to have, access whether on payment or otherwise.”

40.                       That against these high sounding words- Acts and Rules, both in defence forces and paramilitary forces, open bars are there where officers openly take drinks and which facilitates and encourages bar culture and culture of drunkenness. This seems to be sheer contradiction with the prevalent acts and rules.

41.                       That with these facts, the State bearing the brunt for drinking pleasures of members of defence and paramilitary force personnel does not seem to make any sense, On the contrary, it seems completely irrational to quite some extent.

42.                       That it seems shameful that when a very large proportion of Indian population is still living in abject poverty, the government shall be using the public exchequer in providing intoxicating drinks to some people.

43.                       That while it is well-known and universally accepted that the more senior an officer in defence and paramilitary force personnel is, the more safer his surrounding environments are. While a jawan or a constable or a Non-commissioned officer often has to live in far-flung areas which are pretty hostile climatically and has not much amenities for him, a senior officer in both these forces often lives in physically relaxed places which are certainly much less harsher physically and environmentally and they also have much better facilities provided to them. At least, in no circumstances would one find the officers living in more physically hostile and dangerous situations than the subordinate staff. Yet, as far as the liquor quota is concerned, it goes in a reserve manner. While a junior officer in defence forces gets 4 bottles per month, a senior (commissioned) officer gets 10. The situation, as per the petitioners’ information, is even more amusing in paramilitary forces where the amount of subsidized liquor to be drunk depends from one rank to another- DGs unlimited supply, Special DGs and ADGs 14 bottles, IGs and DIGs 12 bottles, Commandants 10 bottles, Inspectors and Sub-inspectors -- six bottle and constabulary 4. Thus, while the jawans living in far flung hostile places can do with 4 bottles per month, DGs, Special DGs, ADGs and most IGs and DIGs living in New Delhi and such other safer and warmer areas need unlimited supply of subsidized liquor. It certainly does not seem to make any sense and only goes on to prove that there is little functional utility and requirement of these drinks and it is only being used as a luxury, enjoyed as additional perks more by the senior officers of these forces and less by the junior members of the forces.

44.                       That thus, this clearly discriminatory approach even in providing the number of bottles of these intoxicating drunks, based solely on rank and file and not on any alleged functional requirement, makes it very apparent that instead of being a functional need, it is an unwarranted and undesired perk, that needs to be stopped immediately, as the burden for this is being born by the public exchequer which could have been used for many other much more needed public purposes

45.                       That there are other aspects of this matter as well. The petitioners know of many senior police and administrative officers who tend to befriend defence force officers only for the sake of subsidized alcoholic drinks. When the petitioners talked with the retired army colonel mentioned earlier, he rued and lamented that since the time he joined Army and started getting subsidized alcoholic drinks, majority of his friendships were based solely on subsidized alcoholic drinks, where he could easily understand that the so-called friend was less interested in him and more interested in his cheaper drinks. He found it disgusting but could not really help.

46.                       That during his own career, the petitioner No 1 has seen many senior police officers running after these subsidized drinks and the suppliers of these subsidized drinks in a manner that can definitely be called improper and disgusting.  If this is the situation with senior police officers, it must be the same all around the society. Hence to provide subsidized alcoholic drinks to defence and paramilitary force personnel, which is later used and consumed by their so-called drunkard friends, is highly undesirable because it not only exposes these persons to undesirable elements, it also makes the knowingly or unknowingly, the supplier of cheap drinks to the society.

47.                       That another aspect is that the supply of these cheap drinks also makes the defence and paramilitary persons prone to drinking. Since they find regular and uninterrupted supply of cheap drinks, many of them, who had never drunk before joining the services, start consuming these beverages. Some of them also manage to get the quota of a few others and become truly alcoholic. This not only reduces the moral fabric of the forces, it also acts as a negative influence to the functioning of these forces.

48.                       That the next aspect is as regards the adverse effect these cheap drinks have on the family members of these defence and paramilitary personnel. As is generally accepted, in a warm country like India, the effect of these intoxicating drinks is often adverse and improper, with the result that the person who has got inebriated, has a much larger potential of acting adversely against his family members. Thus, as told by the petitioners’ acquaintance in Air Force, these cheap drinks are the main reasons for many family violence in defence forces, where a drunk employee ill-treats and beats his wife and children in an intoxicated state.

49.                       That thus what all these facts mean is that while the petitioners and most others would readily agree to food items and household provisions being given to these people at highly subsidized rates as the saviours of the Nation and as one who guard the people of this nation in extremely rough, dangerous, difficult and hazardous terrain, circumstances and environments, they completely and strongly oppose any kind of free/highly subsidized alcoholic drinks and intoxicants being provided to the defence and paramilitary personnel, which is not only using and consuming the tax-payers money, but is also promoting drunkenness in these forces, is making some of these personnel abjectly wasteful and alcoholic, is having adverse effects on their families, is making them suspicious and susceptible to bad company in public, is making them less effective functionally by harping their working abilities and is also discriminatory even within the ranks and files, without any rhyme, reason or logic.

50.                       That hence prima-facie it comes that such subsidized alcoholic drinks are having no use and utility for the defence and paramilitary forces and whatever effects they have are only detrimental and adverse in nature, yet the petitioners, being rational in nature and understanding the fact that the matter relates with defence forces and paramilitary forces, which are the life-wire of national security on which the basic existence of the Nation depends, would still like to believe that instead of coming to a definite conclusion of completely stopping this system at one go without undertaking a detailed and proper evaluation of all the related facts, what is possibly required is to get the matter evaluated and assessed in a fresh manner with an open mind by a High level committee. Thus before taking final decision in this matter either by this Hon’ble Court or by the respondents, it seems necessary that a detailed study of the entire issue- supply of subsidized alcoholic drinks, its use and misuse, it need and necessity, its adverse impacts and its functional requirements for these forces and their personnel, be undertaken and any decision be kindly taken only after the results/conclusions of such a high-level Committee. The petitioners would humbly pray that such a Committee shall necessarily consist of a few highly respected and revered social workers/social activists along with Gandhian philosopher/thinkers and specialists in the field of anti-intoxication.

51.                       That thus the petitioners’ prayer is that firstly the matter be studied by a high level Committee within a reasonable time period (say 6 months) and then the respondents be directed to take appropriate action, as per the conclusions/findings of this Study, within a further time-period of 3 months.

52.                       That since the above matter, being presented through this PIL, is as regards the current practice being followed by the executive, which the petitioners allege to be detrimental to the public exchequer, along with having its other adverse and deteriorating ill-effects, hence it is very well within the ambit of judicial scrutiny of this Hon’ble Court and thereby comes under the jurisdiction and authority of this Hon’ble Court, as this Hon’ble Court has ample powers under the extraordinary authority provided to it under Article 226 of the Constitution, which the petitioners are praying this Hon’ble Court to kindly invoke for all the reasons mentioned in this petition because as stated by this Hon’ble Court in Dhirendra Kumar Rai vs State of UP and others (Service Bench No. - 768 of 2008)- “46. Since almost six decades, courts have been following the Wednesbury principle while interfering with the administrative orders through judicial review but keeping in view the moral devaluation in the society as well as the functioning of the government, the Wednesbury's principle (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v. Wednesbury Corp [1948]1 K.B.223) has been further given strength by evolving and adding other grounds for judicial review of administrative action (DE SMITH'S "Judicial Review") and as stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case, reported in (2009)9 SCC 610 Babubhai Jamnadas Patel versus State of Gujarat and others-“The courts, and in particular the High Courts and the Supreme Court, are the sentinels of justice and have been vested with extraordinary powers of judicial review and supervision to ensure that the rights of the citizens are duly protected. The courts have to maintain a constant vigil against the inaction of the authorities in discharging their duties and obligations in the interest of the citizens for whom they exist. This Court, as also the High Courts, have had to issue appropriate writs and directions from time to time to ensure that the authorities performed at least such duties as they were required to perform under the various statutes and orders passed by the administration." Similar views have been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2006)3 SCC 173 Commissioner of Police and others versus Syed Hussain and in State of U.P. Versus Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and others (2006)3 SCC 276.

53.                       That this Hon’ble Court held in Dhirendra Kumar Rai (supra)-“59. Apart from this, when an action suffers from mala fide or oppression or bias, the courts may lift the veil to find not only the motive behind action but correctness of the allegations raised against a person.

54.                       That as explained in great details in the above Para, this matter is of wide public importance and public concern because it is related with the alleged misuse of public exchequer and also alleged detrimental and adverse effects on the functioning of the defence and paramilitary forces, other than being arbitrary, biased and discriminatory in nature. Thus this Hon’ble Court has all the authority to intervene in this Public Interest Litigation, for the larger public interest, to do complete justice in the matter.

55.                       That the petitioners very well know that their voice would not be heard at any other platform and will be completely ignored as long as it is not backed and duty supported by a mighty institution like this Hon’ble Court. Hence it requires the direct intervention of the Hon’ble Court itself and in the prevailing circumstances, the petitioners are left with no other option than to approach the Hon’ble Court with this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Writ Petition to ask for certain prayers because of the reasons being stated among the Grounds as enumerated below.

56.                       That the petitioner’s photograph and Identity proof in the form of Passport has been enclosed along with.

GROUNDS

(1) Because while the petitioners and most others would readily agree to food items and household provisions being given to these people at highly subsidized rates as the saviours of the Nation and as one who guard the people of this nation in extremely rough, dangerous, difficult and hazardous terrain, circumstances and environments, they completely and strongly oppose any kind of free/highly subsidized alcoholic drinks and intoxicants being provided to the defence and paramilitary personnel,

(2) Because it is using and consuming the tax-payers money which could have gone into other much more important and highly needed public activities,

(3) Because it is also promoting drunkenness in these forces,

(4) Because it is making some of these defence and paramilitary personnel abjectly wasteful and alcoholic

(5) Because it is having adverse effects on their families,

(6) Because it is making them suspicious and susceptible to bad company in public who befriend them only for the sake of cheap liquor

(7) Because it is making them less effective functionally by harping their working abilities

(8) Because it is also discriminatory even within the ranks and files, without any rhyme, reason or logic.

(9) Because there does not seem to be any functional requirement or need for these intoxicating drinks

(10)             Because this seems to be a relic of the British days defence forces where there might have been need to provide cheap drinks to British officers, who belonged to different environment, culture, ethos and upbringing

(11)   Because such provision seems to be without any application of mind

(12)   Because while each of the Army, Air Force, Navy, BSF, CRPF Acts state that intoxicating is an extremely serious offence, where punishment goes up to death penalty, yet the tools of intoxication are being provided by these forces themselves

(13)   Because while IPS officer’s conduct rules says that they shall not be found intoxicated, yet they are being provided cheap drinks by the State itself, which is abjectly contradictory in nature

PRAYER

Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to-

(a)             to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the two respondents, Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs to get a detailed study as regards the currently prevalent system of providing highly subsidized alcoholic drinks/ beverages/liquors to members of the Defence and the Paramilitary forces, conducted by a High level committee consisting necessarily of a few highly respected and revered social workers/social activists along with Gandhian philosophers/thinkers and specialists in the field of anti-intoxication among others, within a reasonable period, say six months, where all aspects regarding supply of subsidized alcoholic drinks, its use and misuse, it need and necessity, its adverse impacts and its functional requirements for these forces and their personnel, are undertaken in a fresh manner, with a completely open mindset

(b)            to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the two respondents to take appropriate decisions as regards providing subsidized alcoholic drinks/ beverages/liquors to members of the Defence and the Paramilitary forces after having got the results/conclusions of the above-mentioned high-level Committee, so as to make a re-analysis and re-evaluation in this regards to either completely stop this practice or to reduce it to the minimum functional level, strictly as per the environmental and functional requirements, within a further time-period of 3 months, as per the conclusions/findings of this Study,

(c)             to pass any other order or directions which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the present case.

Lucknow                                                                      Dr Nutan Thakur
Dated- 16/08/2013                                                Petitioner in Person                                                                                                    # 94155-34525

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No-              of 2013 (PIL-Civil)

Amitabh Thakur and another                                                 Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and another                                                      Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Nutan Thakur, aged about 40 years, w/o Sri Amitabh Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, religion Hinduism, education- P Hd, D Litt, profession- Social activist and journalist, the deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under-

1.     That the deponent is the petitioner No 2 in the above noted petition and as such she is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, deposed to hereunder.  She presents this affidavit on behalf of Sri Amitabh Thakur, respondent No 1, as well.

2.     That the contents of the paragraphs                                                                        of the Writ petition are true to my personal knowledge,                                            based on documents and records and                                                   believed to be true or are based on legal advice.

3.     That the Annexure No NONE is the true copy of the original.

Place Lucknow                                                                  (Nutan Thakur)

Date-     16/08/2013                                                      Deponent

VERIFICATION

I, the deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 above this Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed. So, help me God

Signed and verified this the                             day of                                    2013  at Lucknow

Deponent

Identification

I identify the deponent, on the basis of records produced before me, who has signed before me.

                                    Advocate

Solemnly affirmed me on                                 at                                am/pm by the deponent Nutan Thakur, who has been identified by Sri                              clerk to Sri                                                                                                                                       , Advocate, high court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that she understands the contents of this Affidavit which have been read over and explained to him by me

                                                                                    Oath Commissioner