Denying Canteen Liquor to Ex-CISF Personnel Violates Article 14: Kerala High Court

Kochi – The Kerala High Court has delivered a significant judgment championing the principle of equality, ruling that retired personnel of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) cannot be denied the benefit of purchasing liquor from canteens operated by other Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). The Court held that such denial constitutes hostile discrimination and is a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

In a decision that scrutinizes administrative policy through the lens of fundamental rights, Justice N Nagaresh quashed a recent order by the CISF Director General that had refused the facility to its retirees. The Court declared that ex-CISF personnel are entitled to purchase liquor through the Central Liquor Management System (CLMS) from canteens of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF), or any other CAPF.

The judgment arose from two writ petitions filed by the CISF Ex-Service Welfare Association and three retired CISF officers, who challenged the arbitrary cessation of a long-standing practice.

Background of the Dispute

The issue originated with the introduction of the Central Police Forces Canteen System (CPFCS) in 2006 by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). This system was established to provide canteen facilities, including the sale of liquor since 2011, to both serving and retired personnel of all CAPFs, a group that comprises the CRPF, CISF, ITBP, SSB, BSF, and Assam Rifles.

For several years, retired CISF personnel in Kerala availed this facility, obtaining liquor cards from CRPF authorities and making purchases from the CRPF canteen at Pallippuram. However, this established practice was abruptly halted following the implementation of the new Central Liquor Management System (CLMS). The CRPF cited the absence of retired CISF personnel's data in the new centralized database as the reason for discontinuing the sales.

Following an earlier writ petition, the High Court had directed the CISF Director General to consider a representation from the retired personnel. In a decision dated June 28, 2024, the Director General rejected their plea. The official reasoning cited was that granting such a facility would contravene the "long-standing policy" of the CISF and could "adversely affect security and discipline," potentially triggering similar demands from serving personnel. It was this order that the petitioners challenged in the present case.

Judicial Scrutiny and the Annulment of Discriminatory Policy

Justice Nagaresh subjected the CISF's rationale to rigorous constitutional scrutiny and found it to be "palpably unsustainable." The Court dismantled the arguments put forth by the CISF, holding that they failed to provide a rational basis for discriminating between retirees of the CISF and those of other CAPFs.

The judgment emphatically stated, “When liquor is supplied through canteens to retired personnel of other CAPFs, denial of the same benefit to retired CISF personnel is grossly discriminatory.”

The Court observed that the CISF's primary justifications—security and discipline—were without merit, especially when applied selectively to its own retired personnel. Justice Nagaresh noted that all wings of the CAPFs are engaged in duties critical to national security. The CISF, in particular, is responsible for protecting highly sensitive and critical infrastructure, including nuclear installations, airports, and oil refineries.

The Court reasoned that it was impermissible to create an artificial distinction based on the parent organization when all personnel fall under the same administrative umbrella of the MHA and share a common welfare framework.

“Firstly, all the wings of Central Armed Police Forces are discharging duties which can be described as sensitive in view of the national security requirements. It cannot be said that CISF personnel require a different yardstick in the matter of security and discipline," the Court observed. "Denial of the benefit to the retired CISF personnel offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

Furthermore, the Court dismissed the concern that providing liquor to retired personnel could somehow impact the discipline of the active force. The judgment pointed out the logical disconnect in this argument, stating, "supply of liquor through canteens to retired CAPF personnel cannot impact the discipline of the Force and that too, of CISF alone."

The bench also rejected the administrative apprehension that acceding to this demand would open the floodgates for similar requests from other sectors, deeming it an insufficient reason to perpetuate discrimination against the petitioners.

The Primacy of Article 14

At the core of the High Court's analysis was the application of Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and prohibits the state from denying any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. The Court reiterated the well-settled legal principle that Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification. However, for a classification to be valid, it must be founded on an intelligible differentia that distinguishes those grouped together from those left out, and this differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

In this case, the Court found no intelligible differentia between retired personnel of the CISF and retired personnel of other CAPFs like the CRPF or BSF. All are retirees from forces under the MHA, governed by similar service conditions and entitled to the same welfare benefits under the CPFCS. Singling out one group for the denial of a facility extended to others was, therefore, arbitrary, unreasonable, and devoid of any rational nexus to the stated objectives of security and discipline.

Directives and Implications

Setting aside the CISF's order of June 28, 2024, the Kerala High Court issued clear and actionable directives. It ordered the CISF to share the necessary data of its retired personnel with other CAPFs to facilitate their integration into the CLMS. Concurrently, the Court instructed the CRPF and other relevant respondents to resume the sale of liquor to ex-CISF personnel through the system without further delay.

This judgment serves as a powerful reminder to administrative and executive bodies that policy decisions, particularly those concerning the welfare of service personnel, are not immune from judicial review. It underscores that any classification drawn between similarly situated individuals must withstand the test of Article 14. For legal practitioners in service and constitutional law, the ruling reinforces the judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights against arbitrary state action, ensuring that administrative convenience or unfounded apprehensions cannot override the constitutional mandate of equality.