Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court, through Justice N. Nagareśh, delivered a landmark judgment reaffirming the constitutional principle of equality under Article 14. The Court held that denying liquor canteen facilities to retired CISF personnel, while extending the same to retirees of other Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), is arbitrary, discriminatory, and legally unsustainable.
Setting aside the order issued by the Director General of CISF dated 28 June 2024 (Ext.P18), the Court declared that retired CISF personnel are entitled to purchase liquor through the Central Liquor Management System (CLMS) from CRPF canteens or any other CAPF canteen in Kerala.
The Court directed the CISF to share the database of retired personnel with other CAPF canteens as required under the CLMS, and instructed the CRPF authorities to continue liquor sales to retired CISF personnel through the system.
“When liquor is supplied through canteens to retired personnel of other CAPFs, denial of the same benefit to retired CISF personnel is grossly discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution,” observed the Court.
Facts
The petitioners were retired members of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), represented through the CISF Ex-Service Welfare Association and individual retirees residing in Kerala. They contended that although the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had introduced a Central Police Force Canteen System (CPFCS) in 2006 for all CAPFs — including CISF, CRPF, BSF, ITBP, SSB, and Assam Rifles — the CISF retirees were denied access to liquor canteen facilities.
The petitioners highlighted that while other CAPFs were permitted to obtain liquor through State-approved canteens under the Central Liquor Management System (CLMS), retired CISF personnel were specifically excluded under a 2023 circular.
Initially, pursuant to an interim order of the High Court in W.P.(C) No.10204/2023, CRPF had resumed liquor sales to retired CISF personnel. However, this was abruptly discontinued in January 2024. The CISF justified the discontinuation by claiming that granting liquor facility would violate its internal policy and could affect the discipline and security of vital installations under its protection.
This prompted the petitioners to challenge the exclusion as unconstitutional, discriminatory, and contrary to Union Government policy.
Issues
- Whether the denial of liquor canteen facility to retired CISF personnel, while granting it to retirees of other CAPFs, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the CISF Director General had the authority to curtail welfare benefits extended by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
- Whether the Central Liquor Management System (CLMS) mandates uniform implementation across all CAPFs.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that the CISF’s decision to deny liquor facilities is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to MHA’s circulars which clearly extended welfare and canteen benefits to all CAPFs, including CISF, both serving and retired.
They pointed out that Ext.P4 (OM dated 18.09.2006) established the CPF Canteen System for all CAPFs, and Ext.P5 (dated 28.06.2011) specifically introduced liquor sales to serving and retired personnel. Further, Ext.P6 (OM dated 23.11.2012) categorically directed all States and Union Territories to treat retired CAPF personnel as Ex-Servicemen, entitling them to the same benefits.
The petitioners contended that the CISF Director General’s reasoning — that liquor sales could affect discipline or create similar demands among serving members — was baseless and extraneous. Once a uniformed member retires, he is a civilian, and welfare measures meant for him cannot be withdrawn on assumptions of disciplinary risk.
They further submitted that the Kerala Government’s Gazette Notifications of 2013 and 2018 already permitted liquor sales to all CAPFs, and that retired CISF personnel had historically been issued liquor cards by the CRPF until 2023.
Thus, the exclusion was not only discriminatory but a violation of legitimate expectations and administrative fairness.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents — including the Union of India, CRPF, and CISF — contended that the CISF had never adopted a policy allowing liquor sales to either serving or retired personnel. They argued that each CAPF operates under independent administrative control, and CISF, by design, chose to opt out of the CLMS system to preserve its disciplinary standards given its role in protecting critical national infrastructure such as nuclear installations, airports, and refineries.
The CRPF clarified that under the CLMS system, only personnel whose data are integrated into the central server are eligible to access canteen facilities. Since CISF did not upload its personnel data, their members could not access CLMS services.
The CISF’s Director General maintained that extending liquor facility to CISF personnel would contradict its long-standing policy and could lead to security risks if extended to serving members. Hence, the denial was said to be a policy decision beyond judicial interference.
Analysis of the Law
The Court observed that the Ministry of Home Affairs has consistently pursued a policy of uniform welfare treatment across all CAPFs. The Central Police Force Canteen System (CPFCS), established in 2006, and the subsequent Office Memoranda issued by the MHA, make no distinction between the various CAPFs regarding welfare entitlements.
The Court further noted that the CPFCS and CLMS frameworks were designed to provide equal welfare facilities to all CAPFs — including access to consumer goods, provisions, and liquor at concessional rates.
By refusing to integrate CISF personnel data with the CLMS server and thereby excluding them from welfare entitlements, the CISF’s action defeated the very object of the welfare scheme. The reasoning advanced — concerning discipline and operational sensitivity — was found irrelevant to retired personnel, who no longer perform active duties.
The Court held that administrative discretion cannot override constitutional equality, especially when the same central policy covers all forces.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied upon its own previous ruling in W.P.(C) No.10204/2023, wherein it had already questioned the “illogical discrimination” between retired CISF and other CAPF personnel, observing that there was no rational basis for differential treatment.
The principle resonates with the Supreme Court’s rulings in:
- E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) – asserting that arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality under Article 14.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – holding that any administrative action must be fair, just, and reasonable.
- Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) – emphasizing that even executive actions are subject to equality clauses.
Applying these doctrines, the High Court concluded that the CISF’s selective exclusion of retirees was constitutionally impermissible and contrary to the principle of non-arbitrariness.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Nagareśh held that the CISF’s reasoning in Ext.P18 failed the test of rationality. All CAPFs are engaged in sensitive and national security-related duties, and yet, none except CISF had sought to deny its members liquor canteen privileges.
The Court observed:
“It cannot be said that CISF personnel require a different yardstick in the matter of security and discipline. Denial of the benefit to retired CISF personnel offends Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The Court also emphasized that welfare facilities granted by the MHA cannot be unilaterally curtailed by individual Force heads, particularly when the policy intention was to create uniformity across CAPFs.
The reasoning that extending liquor facilities to retirees might lead to similar demands from serving personnel was found “illogical and unsustainable”. The Court concluded that retired personnel are no longer subject to the Force’s disciplinary code, and such arguments have no legal relevance.
Conclusion
The High Court set aside the CISF’s order (Ext.P18) and declared that retired CISF personnel are entitled to liquor canteen facilities through the CLMS system. It directed the CISF to share the data of retired personnel with other CAPFs and ordered the CRPF to resume liquor sales to such retirees without delay.
The petitions were accordingly allowed and disposed of, with strong judicial reaffirmation of the principles of administrative fairness, equality, and welfare protection for uniformed services.
“Once welfare measures are extended to a class of uniformed personnel, they cannot be denied selectively. Equality before law is not a privilege — it is a constitutional guarantee.”
Implications
This judgment has far-reaching implications for welfare parity across India’s CAPFs. It ensures that retired CISF personnel will now enjoy the same liquor canteen benefits as their counterparts in CRPF, BSF, ITBP, and SSB.
More importantly, it strengthens the jurisprudence that policy differentiation among similarly situated service groups must withstand Article 14 scrutiny. The decision is likely to influence future administrative decisions concerning uniform benefits for all CAPFs, reinforcing the constitutional ethos of fairness and equality.
FAQs
1. Why did the Kerala High Court allow liquor canteen access to retired CISF personnel?
Because denying them the facility while granting it to other CAPF retirees was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Can CISF’s Director General decide internal welfare policies independently?
No. Welfare schemes for CAPFs are governed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and individual Force heads cannot override central policy.
3. Does this judgment apply only to Kerala?
While delivered by the Kerala High Court, its reasoning has national applicability, as it interprets a central policy governing all CAPFs.
