Alcohol Catering Permit Application For Off-Premise Catering: Fill & Download for Free

Here is the information from the City of Chicago Website. Liquor licenses vary based on types. They are not always easy to get.Classes of Liquor LicensesThese categories were established to help the City identify and regulate the various types of establishments serving alcoholic beverages. In addition, these categories facilitate the application process by ensuring applicants are seeking the proper type of license for their specific establishments.Tavern LicenseBars, nightclubs, taverns, pubs, and lounges are required to obtain a tavern license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages as the primary source of business. In other words, if the establishment’s business is to sell alcohol, to be consumed on the premises, a Tavern license is required. Patrons entering a tavern must be 21 or older. Persons under 21 may only enter a licensed tavern accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.Moratorium restrictions against the issuance of a new tavern license may apply; ask a hospitality business consultant in the Small Business Center or your Alderman if your business is located in a moratorium district.Taverns that offer live entertainment, charge admission for entry or have several amusement devices such as pool tables or arcade games may need a Public Place of Amusement license to conduct such activity.Requirements: Please review Required DocumentsInspections Required: Criminal History Review, Onsite Inspection, Health, Fire, DOB-Special Inspection Program, Plumbing, Ventilation, Local Liquor Control CommissionFees: $4,400.00 + $40.00 one time publication feeRenewal: 2 YearPackaged Goods LicenseThis license is necessary for the retail sale of alcoholic liquor enclosed in the original manufacturer sealed and labeled container. Businesses requiring a packaged goods license include grocery stores, convenient stores, and liquor stores. Businesses that sell packaged goods are not permitted to sell alcohol to be consumed on the premises. Tasting is permitted but must comply with Illinois State regulations (Section 5/6-31 of the Illinois Liquor Control Act).A moratorium restriction against the issuance of a new packaged goods license may apply; ask a hospitality business consultant in the Small Business Center or your Alderman if your business is located in a moratorium district.Requirements: Please review Required DocumentsInspections Required: Criminal History Review, Onsite Inspection, Health-Food Protection, Fire, Local Liquor Control CommissionFees: $4,400.00 + $40.00 one time publication feeRenewal: 2 YearConsumption on Premises-Incidental Activity LicenseThe COP license is required for the retail sale of alcohol to be consumed on the premises at a place of business where the sale of alcoholic liquor is incidental or secondary to the primary activity. Restaurants, hotels, banquet halls, theaters and bowling alleys that would like to sell liquor are required to have a Consumption on Premises-Incidental Activity (COP) license. Moratorium restrictions do not apply for restaurants seeking a COP license. However, moratorium restrictions may apply to other businesses seeking a COP license. Businesses with a COP typically require additional licenses depending on the business activity.For example, a public place of amusement license is needed for theaters to operate and a retail food license is required for a restaurant.Requirements: Please view Required DocumentsInspections Required: Criminal History Review, Onsite Inspection, Health, Fire, DOB-Special Inspection Program, Local Liquor Control CommissionFees:$4,400.00 + $40.00 one time publication feeRenewal:2 YearConditional ApprovalThe City recognizes that opening a business is a major financial commitment that involves a large amount of risk. In order to minimize that risk, the City has established a conditional approval process for businesses applying for a Consumption on Premises-Incidental Activity License(COP), Packaged Goods or Tavern License. This process is useful for businesses that are planning for construction of a new facility or significant rehabilitation of an older facility. This process ensures business owners that a liquor license will be issued once the facility is completed.A business applying for a liquor license under conditional approval must undergo the same process as any other liquor license application, with the exception of the facility inspections. These inspections will be performed once the building is fully constructed. Businesses applying for a liquor license under conditional approval will receive a decision within 90 days of the application file date. If conditional approval is granted, applicants have one year to complete construction and pass all required inspections.Applicants filing an application for an Expanded Establishment Liquor License may file as conditional approval regardless of the type of license they have.Caterer's License (for caterers located within the City of Chicago)A Caterer’s License allows catering companies or restaurants located within the city limits to cater food and alcoholic beverages off site and within the City of Chicago. "Off Site" catering means the preparation of food at one location for service at another. Holders of this license are required to have a valid City of Chicago Retail Food Establishment License as well.Requirements: Please view Required DocumentsInspections Required:Criminal History Review, Onsite Inspection, Health, Local Liquor Control CommissionFees:$4,400.00 ($2,200.00 for holders of a Consumption on Premise-Incidental Activity License) + $40.00 one time publication feeRenewal: 2 YearCaterer's Registration(for caterers located outside the City of Chicago)A Caterer’s Registration permits caterers or restaurants that are located outside the City of Chicago to cater events with food and alcoholic beverages within the city limits. "Outside Caterer" means a person who performs off site catering by preparing food at a locationoutside the City of Chicago for service at a location within the city limits. For more information, please review section 04-60-081 of the Chicago Municipal Code.Requirements:Local Municipality Food and Liquor License, a copy of an inspection report conducted by your local health department, and a certificate of liquor liability insurance, food sanitation certificate.Inspections Required:HealthFees:$6,600.00Renewal:2 YearSecondary & Special Liquor Licenses:Outdoor Patio (Secondary)An Outdoor Patio License is required to sell alcoholic liquor in a privately owned outdoor location adjacent to premises licensed as a Tavern or Consumption on Premises-Incidental Activity. An outdoor patio must close by 11 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and midnight, Friday and Saturday. Live or recorded music may not be played or performed at any outdoor location licensed as an Outdoor Patio. Late Hour Licenses do not extend to an outdoor patio. Businesses that have a Retail Food Establishment license and wish to operate on the public sidewalk need to obtain a Sidewalk Cafe Permit.Requirements:Site Plan, Outdoor Floor Plan, Liquor Liability Insurance Certificate, & Occupancy PlacardInspections Required:Onsite Inspection, DOB-Special Inspection Program, Local Liquor Control CommissionFees: $1,760.00+$40.00 one time publication feeRenewal:2 YearLate Hour License (Secondary)Businesses wishing to remain open beyond the legal closing time of 2:00 a.m. may apply for a Late Hour Liquor License. This license is required for the additional privilege to remain open and permit the sale of alcoholic liquor until 4:00 a.m., Monday-Saturday, and until 5:00 a.m. on Sunday. Businesses holding a Tavern, Packaged Goods, or Consumption on Premises-Incidental Activity license are permitted to apply for a late hour license.Moratorium restrictions against the issuance of a new tavern license may apply; ask a hospitality business consultant in the Small Business Center or your Alderman if your business is located in a moratorium district.Requirements:Site Plan, Floor Plan, Late Hour Petition and related documentsInspections Required:Local Liquor Control CommissionFees:$6,000.00+$40.00 one time publication feeRenewal:2 YearOther Special Liquor Licenses:Looking to sell liquor at Riverwalk, Lakefront, or Navy Pier. If you want more information, schedule an appointment with an hospitality business consultant by calling 312.74GO-Biz (4-6249)

Supreme Court of IndiaThe State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By ... vs K. Balu & Anr on 15 December, 2016Author: D Y Chandrachu[1] dBench: T.S. Thakur, D.Y. Chandrachud, L. Nageswara Rao REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CIVIL APPEAL Nos .12164-12166 OF 2016  [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.14911-14913 of 2013]   THE STATE OF TAMILNADU .....APPELLANTS REP. BY ITS SECRETARY HOME, PROHOBITION & EXCISE DEPT & ORS   Versus  K BALU & ANR .....RESPONDENTS    WITH   CIVIL APPEAL No. 12167 OF 2016  [Arising out of SLP (C)No.8267 OF 2014]   CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 12168 OF 2016  [Arising out of SLP(C) No.8971 OF 2014]   CIVIL APPEAL No. 12169 OF 2016  [Arising out of SLP (C) No.35454 OF 2014]   CIVIL APPEAL No.12170 OF 2016  [S.L.P.(C) No.36787 of 2016 @ of CC No.231 OF 2015]   CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 12171-12172 OF 2016  [S.L.P.(C) Nos.36788-36789 of 2016 @ of CC Nos.18587-18588 OF 2015]   CIVIL APPEAL No.12173 OF 2016  [Arising out of SLP(C) No.34525 OF 2015]     AND   T.P.(C) No.739-741OF 2016      J U D G M E N T Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J Delay condoned.Leave granted.The issue which we address in this case is about the presence of liquor vends on national and state highways across the country. The backdrop to the case is provided by alarming statistics on the occurrence of road accidents. They have claimed human lives and caused debility and injury. Both on a personal scale (in terms of the injuries and loss of life) as well as in a social context, restitution in the form of mandatory awards of compensation can never undo the trauma of loss and the pain of suffering. The law can only imperfectly alleviate the consequences of road accidents. In terms of personal suffering caused to individuals and families as well as in terms of deprivation caused to society of its productive social capital, road accidents impose unacceptable costs. We will analyse the issues which have been raised in this case on the basis of facts which are not in dispute and on the foundation of policy statements of the Union government which have been formulated after careful consideration. In doing that, the court must ensure that the parameters for the exercise of its jurisdiction are confined to the familiar terrain of enforcing the constitutional right to lead a life of dignity and self-worth.2 The Union and the State Lists of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution distribute (in conjunction with Articles 245 and 246) legislative jurisdiction over the highways which traverse the length and breadth of India, between Parliament and the State Legislatures. The constitutional pattern in relation to the distribution of legislative heads is replicated in this area : what is national is reserved to Parliament while that which has a state-centric orientation is reserved to the state legislatures. Entry 23 of the Union List is thus :“23. Highways declared by or under law made by Parliament to be national highways”.Entry 13 of the State List is thus :“13. Communications, that is to say, roads, bridges, ferries, and other means of communication not specified in List I; municipal tramways; ropeways; inland waterways and traffic thereon subject to the provisions of List I and List III with regard to such waterways; vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles.” 3 The Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in its Transport Research Wing has brought out a publication titled “Road Accidents in India- 2015”. The cover depicts in rather graphic terms vehicles involved in car crashes. There is a large group of persons assembled in the foreground, an ambulance bearing the ‘108’ logo and a police car. Familiar sights on Indian roads. The publication tells us that :“11.1 During 2015, within the category of drivers’ fault, accidents caused and persons killed due to ‘Exceeding lawful speed’, accounted for a high share of 62.2 per cent (2,40,463 out of 3,86,481 accidents) and 61.0 per cent (64,633 out of 1,06,021 deaths), respectively.However taking into account the total road accidents and total road accident killings, the share of over speeding comes to 47.9 per cent (2,40,463 out of 5,01,423 accidents) and 44.2 per cent (64,633 out of 1,46,133 deaths) respectively.11.2 Intake of alcohol/drugs by drivers resulted in 16,298 road accidents and 6,755 fatalities in 2015 within the category of drivers’ fault, intake of alcohol/drugs accounted for 4.2 per cent and 6.4 per cent respectively.However taking into account the total road accidents and total road accident killing, the share of intake of alcohol/drugs comes to 3.3 per cent (16,298 out of 5,01,423 accidents) and 4.6 per cent (6,755 out of 1,46,133 deaths) respectively.” 4 The total number of persons killed in road accidents on national highways was 48,768 in 2012 and 51,204 in 2015. In 2014, on the national highways there were 1.24 lakh accident cases resulting in 1.35 lakh persons injured and 46,110 deaths. During the same year, on state highways, there were 1.13 lakh accident cases resulting in 1.24 lakh injured and 39,352 deaths. The expressways witnessed 4,208 accident cases, 4,229 injured and 1,802 deaths.[1]. Figures are also available of the distribution of road accidents by causes during 2014. 1.38 lakh persons were injured in road accidents involving dangerous or careless driving and 42,127 deaths occurred. Injuries caused in accidents due to over-speeding stood at 1.81 lakh while there were 48,654 deaths. 7,307 accident cases involving driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol were registered resulting in 7,398 injuries and 2,591 deaths. In regard to the figures of death or injury due to drunken driving there is a tendency to under estimate or under—report in order not to impede the right of victims and/ or their legal heirs to receive compensation.5 Now in this background, it would be necessary to elucidate the policy adopted by the Union government. The National Road Safety Council (NRSC) is an apex body for road safety established under Section 215 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. NRSC unanimously agreed in a meeting which was held nearly thirteen years ago on 15 January 2004 that licences for liquor shops should not to be given along the national highways. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) issued a circular to all the state governments advising them to remove liquor shops situated along national highways and not to issue fresh licenses. Since 26 October 2007, when an advisory was issued, MoRTH has consistently advised all the state governments to remove liquor shops and not to issue fresh licences to liquor vends along national highways.6 On 1 December 2011, MoRTH in an advisory to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories noted that India had reported the highest number of road accident fatalities in the world and data of 2009 indicated that a road accident occurred every four minutes. Drunken driving, it was stated, was a leading cause of road accidents with as many as 27,152 road accidents being caused under the influence of alcohol in that year. The advisory drew attention to the provisions of Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and solicited the following enforcement action :“(i) Strict enforcement of section 185 of MV Act 1988 preferably pursuing cases in various courts for award of penalty of imprisonment followed by adequate publicity which will together act as a deterrent for drunken driving.(ii) Removal of Liquor shops along National highways.(iii) No fresh license may be issued to Liquor vendors to open shops along National highways.(iv) Wherever licenses have been given in the past to open liquor shops along National highways, such cases may be reviewed and corrective action taken under intimation to this Ministry.” Section 185 to which a reference has been made in the above circular provides as follows :“185. Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs.Whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle,--has, in his blood, alcohol in any quantity, howsoever small the quantity may be, or is under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence, if committed within three years of the commission of the previous similar offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both.Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the drug or drugs specified by the Central Government in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette, shall be deemed to render a person incapable of exercising proper control over a motor vehicle.” .Section 185 is indicative of a Parliamentary intent to follow a zero- tolerance policy towards driving under the influence of alcohol.The position was illustrated in another advisory dated 18 March 2013 of MoRTH to the Chief Secretaries of States and Union Territories where it was stated that in 2011, 1.42 lakh people were killed in 4.9 lakhs road accidents. 24,655 road accidents were caused due to drunken driving resulting in 10,553 deaths and injuries to 21,148 persons. The advisory requested the removal of all liquor vends on national highways and a ban on the issuance of fresh licences on the ground that “prevention is better than cure”.7 In an advisory dated 21 May 2014, MoRTH stated that in 2012, 1.38 lakh people were killed in 4.9 lakh road accidents. 23,979 road accidents were caused due to drunken driving resulting in 7835 deaths and injuries to 23,403 persons.8 The Union government has constantly issued advisories setting out, as a matter of policy, its position.9 The material which has been placed on record indicates that :(i) India has a high rate of road accidents and fatal road accidents – one of the advisories states that it is the highest in the world with an accident occurring every four minutes;(ii) There is a high incidence of road accidents due to driving under the influence of alcohol;(iii) The existence of liquor vends on national highways is in the considered view of the National Road Safety Council and MoRTH – expert authorities with domain knowledge – a cause for road accidents on national highways;(iv) Advisories have been issued to the State Governments and Union Territories to close down liquor vends on national highways and to ensure that no fresh licences are issued in the future. The reason why these advisories are confined to the national highways is because of the distribution of legislative competence between the Union and the States under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. State highways fall under the domain of the states.10 The figures which are available on the record indicate that the occurrence of a large number of road accidents is not a phenomenon confined to national highways nor is the prevalence of road accidents, including fatalities, confined only to the national highways. Both the national highways and state highways share a common experience of an unacceptably high number of road accidents, the prevalence injuries and fatalities; drunken driving being one of the major causes. Hence, the content of the advisories which have been issued by the Union government as well as their basis, rationale and foundation would equally apply to state highways. Human life is precious. As the road network expands in India, road infrastructure being an integral part of economic development, accidents profoundly impact on the life of the common citizen. For a nation on the cusp of economic development, India can well avoid the tag of being the accident capital of the world. Our highways are expanding, as are the expressways. They provide seamless connectivity and unheralded opportunities for the growth of trade and industry and for the movement of goods, persons and capital. They are the backbone of the freedom of trade and commerce guaranteed by Article 301 of the Constitution. Our highways are dotted with sign boards warning of the dangers of combining speed and alcohol. Together, they constitute a heady cocktail. The availability of liquor along the highways is an opportunity to consume. Easy access to liquor shops allows for drivers of vehicles to partake in alcohol, in callous disregard to their own safety and the safety of others. The advisories of the Union government to the states are founded on a logical and sound rationale.11 We are conscious of the fact that the policy of the Union government to discontinue liquor vends on national highways may not eliminate drunken driving completely. A driver of a motor vehicle can acquire liquor even before the commencement of a journey or, during a journey at a place other than a national or state highway. The law on preventing drunken driving also requires proper enforcement. Having said this, the court must accept the policy of the Union government for more than one reason. First and foremost, it is trite law that in matters of policy, in this case a policy on safety, the court will defer to and accept a considered view formed by an expert body. Second as we have seen, this view of the Union government is based on statistics and data which make out a consistent pattern year after year. Third the existence of liquor vends on highways presents a potent source for easy availability of alcohol. The existence of liquor vends; advertisements and sign boards drawing attention to the availability of liquor coupled with the arduous drives particularly in heavy vehicles makes it abundantly necessary to enforce the policy of the Union government to safeguard human life. In doing so, the court does not fashion its own policy but enforces the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution based on the considered view of expert bodies.12 There is no fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to trade in liquor. Liquor has been regarded as res extra commercium : State of Bihar v. Nirmal Kumar Gupta, (2013) 2 SCC 565; Amar Chandra Chakraborty, Appellant v. Collector of Excise, Govt of Tripura, Agartala, (1972) 2 SCC 442; Nashirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 1 SCC 29; Har Shankar v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, (1975) 1 SCC 737; Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu v. K. Vinayagamurthy, (2002) 7 SCC 104; State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. (2004) 11 SCC 26. State of Kerala v. Kandath Distilleries, (2013) 6 SCC 573.13 Liquor licences in respect of potable alcoholic liquor are granted by the state governments. Entry 51 of the state list provides for duties of excise on alcoholic liquors for home consumption manufactured and produced in the state and countervailing duties at the same or lower rates on similar goods manufactured or produced elsewhere in India. The power of the states to grant liquor licences is undoubted. The issue is whether such liquor licences should be granted on national and state highways at the cost of endangering human lives and safety. In our view, which is based on the expert determination of the Union government, we hold that the answer should be in the negative. Though, excise duty is an important source of revenue to the states, a prohibition on the grant of liquor licences to liquor shops on the national and state highways would only regulate the grant of such licences in a manner that would ensure that the consumption of alcoholic liquor does not pose dangers to the lives and safety of the users of national and state highways. May we also remind ourselves that among the Directive Principles contained in the Constitution is that in Article 47 :“47. 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.” 14 Well over a decade ago, the Union government had formulated for consideration and adoption by the states a document titled “Model Policy/taxation/act/rules for alcoholic beverages and alcohol”. The Model Policy inter alia made general provisions relating to liquor vends. Para 92(2) of the Model Policy inter alia provides as follows :“(2) No licence for sale of liquor shall be granted to a retail vend selected within a distance of 100 metres from any religious or educational institution or hospital or outside the inhabited site of village /town/city or any Office of the State/Central Government or Local Authorities or within a distance of 220 metres from the middle of the State/National Highways.Explanation – For the purpose of this rule :“National Highway” or “State Highway” shall not include such parts of the National Highway or State Highway as are situated within the limits of Municipal Corporation, City or Town Municipal Council or such other authority having a population of twenty thousand or more.” This Model Policy provided for a minimum distance from the state/national highways for locating liquor shops. However, an exception was carved out to the effect that the national or state highways would not include such parts of them as are situated within the limits of the local authorities with a population of 20,000 or more. By an order of this Court dated 8 September 2015, the attention of the authorities was drawn to the fact that the model policy had been prepared nearly a decade earlier and several decisions of the High Courts have been delivered since. Hence, the court opined that it was necessary that the policy is revisited by the states and union territories and by the Union government together in regard to the sale of liquor and alcoholic beverages in the proximity of national and state highways. MoRTH however has informed the court on affidavit that a model policy on alcoholic beverages and alcohol does not fall within its purview, and hence it may not be in a position to review the model policy. MoRTH while stating this has emphasised its considered view and position based on the statistics of road accidents that liquor shops should not be situated along national highways. We see no rational basis to exclude stretches of national highways and state highways which fall within the limits of a municipal or local authority (with a population exceeding a stipulated figure) from the ambit of the suggested prohibition. Where a national or state highway passes through a city, town or through the area of jurisdiction of a local authority, it would completely deny sense and logic to allow the sale of liquor along that stretch of the highway. Such an exclusion would defeat the policy since the presence of liquor shops along such stretches of a national or state highway would allow drivers to replenish their stock of alcohol, resulting in a situation which the policy seeks to avoid in the first place. Once it is an accepted position that the presence of liquor vends along the highways poses a grave danger to road safety an exception cannot be carved out to permit the sale of liquor along a stretch of the highway which passes through the limits of a city, town or local authority. Such an exception would be wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14.15 During the course of the hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab stated before the court that based on the model policy the Punjab Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 was brought into force on 28 March 2016. Section 26A of the Punjab Excise Act, 1941 provides as follows :"26-A. (1) The location of the liquor vends shall be regulated by the Government: Provided that this section shall be applicable only to liquor vends situated in areas adjoining the National Highways and State Highways for consumption, off the premises. (2) No licence for sale of liquor shall be granted to a liquor vend situated within the road reservation of National Highways and State Highways and beyond road reservation neither the liquor vends nor their entry points shall be visible or directly accessible from the National Highways and State Highways. Explanation.– (i) “Visibility” means existence of any signboard, direction mark, display of stock of liquor, display of rates or any direct/indirect invitation to the commuter travelling on such Highway; and (ii) “Directly Accessible” means such liquor vend shall not be directly approachable from the National Highway and State Highway. (3) The restrictions referred to in sub-section (2) shall not apply to the liquor vends situated in the areas adjoining to National Highway and State Highway, passing through the limits of Municipal Corporation/Municipal Council/ Municipal Committee/ Notified Area Committee/ Nagar Council/ Cantonment Board or any other Authority having a population of twenty thousand or more."16 Explanation 3 by its operation merely confers an enabling power upon the state government to grant liquor licences in the area as described therein. We are of the view that the exercise of this enabling power by the State government must not obstruct or impede the overwhelming public interest in ensuring that the sale of liquor along national or state highways should be discontinued having regard to the danger to road safety.17 These proceedings have arisen under Article 136of the Constitution from the judgments of the High Courts at Madras and Punjab and Haryana respectively. The Madras High Court was seized with a public interest litigation seeking the removal of retail outlets for liquor on national and state highways, contrary to the advisory of the Union government dated 1 December 2011. The High Court noted that in the state of Tamil Nadu liquor shops along the highways are being run by Tamil Nadu State Marketing Transport Corporation (TASMAC). Before the High Court, the Managing Director of TASMAC stated that :“It was also submitted that TASMAC Ltd has been taking all prudent steps to remove the shops located in Highways and has instructed all the Senior Regional Managers to refrain from giving new licenses to shops that are proposed to be located on the Highways and also shift the existing shops to some other place without violating the Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 and other relevant laws.” The affidavit stated that nearly 504 shops are situated along national highways and sometime would be required to relocate them. It was stated that 75 shops have been shifted and a new location for 335 shops had been identified. Six months’ time was sought for shifting the shops; the affidavit having being filed in March 2013. The High Court by a judgment and order of its Division Bench dated 25 February 2013 granted time until 31 March 2013 for the relocation of existing liquor shops being run on national/state highways. This order of the High Court has been questioned by the State of Tamil Nadu and TASMAC.18 During the pendency of these proceedings, this Court by its order dated 7 May 2013 directed that liquor vends along national highways be removed by 14 August 2013. Notice was issued, confined to the closure of liquor vends along state highways. An affidavit was filed before this Court on 22 August 2013 by the state government stating that 504 TASMAC retail liquor shops along the national highways have been shifted. The additional affidavit filed by the state on 29 April 2013 sets out the position in regard to state highways.The total length of state highways is divided into five regions namely,(i) Chennai; (ii) Coimbatore (iii) Madurai; (iv) Salem; and (v) Trichy and traverses 9520.4 kilometres. The total number of shops situated thereon is stated to be 1731. 839 liquor shops out of them are situated in market areas abutting the state highways in towns, municipalities and corporations while 892 are liquor shops in rural areas abutting the state highways. These figures which have been disclosed by the state government indicate the serious nature of the problem. The proliferation of liquor shops on state highways (1731 shops over 9520 kilometres) indicates the easy availability of liquor on the state highways. Evidently within a distance of a few kilometres a liquor shop is available to cater to the demand of the users of the highways. There can be no valid distinction between a national highway and state highway insofar as the location of liquor shops abutting the highway is concerned. Accidents take place both on national and state highways and the easy availability of liquor possess a grave danger to the safety and lives of those who use these highways.19 Insofar as the State of Punjab is concerned, the petition for special leave has been filed by the state government against a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court dated 18 March 2014. Like the case before the Madras High Court, the proceedings before the Punjab and Haryana High Court were instituted in public interest (in this case by the Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh) seeking directions for the removal of liquor vends from highways. The High Court directed the State of Haryana to ensure in its liquor policy that no liquor vend shall be located along the national highways/state highways and that liquor shops are not accessible or visible from those highways or from the service lanes running along such highways. The High Court rejected the case of the state that the prohibition should be confined only to the national highways. The High Court has, in our view, justifiably held that it can hardly be contended that drunken driving is not permissible on national highways but does no harm on state highways. In relation to the States of Punjab as well as Haryana the High Court has held that the prohibition would apply to state and national highways.20 For the reasons that we have already indicted, we have come to the conclusion that the views of the High Court of Madras and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana are unexceptionable. No distinction can be made between national and state highways in regard to the location of liquor shops. In regulating the use of national and state highways, the safety of the users of the road is of paramount concern. It would defy common sense to prohibit liquor shops along national highways while permitting them on state highways. Drunken driving as a menace and as a cause of road accidents is a phenomenon common to both national and state highways. Nor, is it a plausible defence to urge that while it is impermissible to drink and drive on a national highway, it is permissible to do so on a state highway.21 Moreover, we find merit in the restrictions suggested by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the prohibition should extend not merely to the national and state highways but must be so appropriately tailored so as to ensure that the policy is not defeated by locating liquor shops in close proximity of the highway. A restriction that the shop should not be accessible or visible from the national or state highways or from a service lane along such highways is necessary to ensure that the policy is not surreptitiously violated. Our attention has been drawn during the course of the hearing to a report filed by the OSD Vigilance before the High Court indicating that the prohibition was sought to be defeated by setting up liquor vends which, though not visible from the highway, were situated in close proximity with signboards indicating their presence. The entry to the shop is camouflaged or placed at the rear portion to evade the judicial direction. A detailed survey has been made by the OSD in which observations in regard to liquor shops located along the highway have been recorded. We may also advert at this stage to a letter dated 4 August 2012 of the Project Director of National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to the Deputy Commissioners of various regions in Punjab. The letter highlights that on a stretch of 291 kilometres on the Panipat-Jalandhar section of NH- 1, there are as many as 185 liquor shops (though in comparison the trauma centres and hospitals where immediate medical service can be provided to road accident victims is almost negligible). Many of the liquor shops have encroached on national highway land. Though, NHAI has sought the removal of these shops, “concrete action” is yet to be taken due to the lack of support from various quarters. Liquor shops, the Project Director notes, are owned by influential people making the removal of unauthorised encroachment impossible without the support of the district administration.22 For all these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that no licences for liquor shops should be allowed both on the national and state highways. Moreover, in order to ensure that this provision is not defeated by the adoption of subterfuge, it would be necessary to direct that no exception can be carved out for the grant of liquor licences in respect of those stretches of the national or state highways which pass through the limits of any municipality corporation, city, town or local authority. Necessary safeguards must be introduced to ensure that liquor vends are not visible or directly accessible from the highway within a stipulated distance of 500 metres form the outer edge of the highway, or from a service lane along the highway.23 However, we have also duly borne in mind the practical difficulty which has been expressed on behalf of the licence holders (including those in the town of Mahe) and the states that there are licences which have been duly renewed and whose term is still to expire. The states apprehend that premature termination may lead to claims for refund of licence fee for the unexpired term, with large financial implications. Hence we would direct that current licences may continue for the existing term but not later than 1 April 2017.24 We accordingly hereby direct and order as follows :All states and union territories shall forthwith cease and desist from granting licences for the sale of liquor along national and state highways;The prohibition contained in (i) above shall extend to and include stretches of such highways which fall within the limits of a municipal corporation, city, town or local authority;The existing licences which have already been renewed prior to the date of this order shall continue until the term of the licence expires but no later than 1 April 2017;All signages and advertisements of the availability of liquor shall be prohibited and existing ones removed forthwith both on national and state highways;No shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i) visible from a national or state highway; (ii) directly accessible from a national or state highway and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 metres of the outer edge of the national or state highway or of a service lane along the highway.All States and Union territories are mandated to strictly enforce the above directions. The Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police shall within one month chalk out a plan for enforcement in consultation with the state revenue and home departments. Responsibility shall be assigned inter alia to District Collectors and Superintendents of Police and other competent authorities. Compliance shall be strictly monitored by calling for fortnightly reports on action taken.These directions issue under Article 142 of the Constitution.25 We dispose of the appeals and transfer petitions in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.….......................................CJI [T S THAKUR] ….............................................J [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD] ...........................................J [L NAGESWARA RAO] New Delhi December 15, 2016.-----------------------[1] [2] See death A.7 page 160Footnotes[1] The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By ... vs K. Balu & Anr on 15 December, 2016

just see her works and you may answer on your own,Indian Police Service career[edit]As a young woman, Bedi frequented the Service Club in Amritsar, where interaction with senior civil servants inspired her to take up a public service career. On 16 July 1972, Bedi started her police training at the National Academy of Administration in Mussoorie. She was the only woman in a batch of 80 men, and became the first woman IPS officer. After a 6-month foundation course, she underwent another 9 months of police training at Mount Abu in Rajasthan, and further training with Punjab Police in 1974. Based on a draw, she was allocated to the union territory cadre (now called AGMUT or Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram-Union Territories cadre).[4]:26§First posting in Delhi[edit]Bedi's first posting was to the Chanakyapuri subdivision of Delhi in 1975. The same year, she became the first woman to lead the all-male contingent of the Delhi Police at the Republic Day Parade in 1975.[2]Her daughter Sukriti (later Saina) was born in September 1975.[4]:26Chanakyapuri was an affluent area that included the Parliament building, foreign embassies, and the residences of the Prime Minister and the President. The crimes in the area were mainly limited to minor thefts, but political demonstrations (which sometimes turned violent) were a regular occurrence. During the 1970s, there were many clashes between Nirankari and Akali Sikhs. On 15 November 1978, a group of Nirankaris held a congregation near India Gate. A contingent of 700–800 Akalis organized a demonstration against them. DCP Bedi's platoon was deployed to stop the protesters and prevent violence. As the protesters resorted to brick-batting, Bedi charged them with a cane, although there was no tear gas squad to support her unit. One of the demonstrators ran towards her with a naked sword, but she charged him as well as other demonstrators with a cane. Ultimately, her unit was able to disperse the demonstrators. For this action, Bedi was awarded the President's Police Medal for Gallantry (1979), in October 1980.[12]:33In 1979, Bedi was posted to Delhi's West District, where there were not enough officers to handle the high volume of criminal activity. To compensate, she started recruiting civilian volunteers. Each village in the district was night patrolled by six civilians led by an armed policeman. She enabled anonymous reporting of any knowledge about crimes. She clamped down on bootlegging and the illicit liquor business to reduce crimes in the area. Bedi implemented an open door policy, which encouraged citizens to interact with her. She implemented a "beat box" system: a complaint box was installed in each ward, and the beat constables were instructed to have their lunch near this box at a set time each day. She regularly asked people if they knew about the beat constable assigned to their area, and also walked with the constables to raise their self-esteem. Within 3 months, there was a reduction in crimes. There was a drop in cases related to "eve-teasing" (sexual harassment of women) and wife beating. This gained her the goodwill of local women, who also volunteered their services to help fight crime in the area.[11]In October 1981, Bedi was made DCP (Traffic). The preparation for the 1982 Asian Games had caused traffic snarls in the city. The construction of 19 sports stadiums and several flyovers had resulted in a number of blockades and diversions. Bedi encouraged coordination between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and Delhi Development Authority. She clamped down on errant motorists with a heavy hand. She replaced challans (traffic tickets) with spot fines. Her team towed improperly parked vehicles using six tow trucks ("cranes") for traffic control. This earned her the nickname "Crane Bedi". On 5 August 1982, an Ambassador car (DHI 1817) belonging to Prime Minister Office was towed away by sub-inspector Nirmal Singh, as it was wrongly parked outside the Yusufzai Market at Connaught Place. Singh was fully supported by Bedi and her superior Ashok Tandon.[5][12]:149To raise funds for traffic guidance materials, Bedi presented Asian Games traffic management plan to a group of sponsors. The sponsors committed to providing road safety and other educational material worth3,500,000. She also bought traffic police jeeps for her officers; for the first time, four wheelers were allocated to inspectors in the traffic unit. After the Asian Games were over, she was given Asian Jyotiaward for excellence. She refused to accept the award for herself alone, and recommended that it be given to entire traffic unit.[4]:32–33Bedi did not spare errant motorists from the rich and influential section of the society, which resulted in a powerful lobby against her. Her victims included the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation and her own sister-in-law.[17] After the Asian Games were over, she was transferred to Goa for 3 years. According to contemporary rumours, Indira Gandhi's aides R. K. Dhawan and Yashpal Kapoor, as well as her yoga instructor Dhirendra Brahmachari (whom Bedi had personally fined for a wrongly parked car), played a role in her transfer.[18] According to another theory, the loss of revenue resulting from her experiment of holding classes for traffic violators (instead of fining them) was a major factor in her transfer.[12]:78Her 7-year old daughter suffered from nephritic syndrome since the age of 3, and was seriously ill at the time. Bedi requested the Home Ministry to not to transfer her out of Delhi until her daughter's condition became stable.[4]:34–35 According to Bedi, she had put herself in a "very vulnerable situation", and the only people who could help her were the ones "who had been offended by my 'equal enforcement of law'".[11] Her request was not entertained, and she had to leave behind her daughter, who was too ill to accompany her.§Goa[edit]Bedi arrived in Goa in March 1983, on a three-year assignment. A few months after her arrival, the Zuari Bridge was completed but not opened to public; the state government wanted Indira Gandhi to come from Delhi and inaugurate it formally. However, they were not able to secure confirmation from Indira Gandhi for several days. The public had to use ferries to transfer their vehicles across the Zuari River. One day, during a patrol, Bedi noticed that there was a huge mess at the ferry boarding point. She drove to the bridge, removed the blockades and diverted the traffic waiting at ferry to the bridge. This unofficial inauguration angered many politicians.[4]:36 In November 1983, Goa hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meet (CHOGM). Bedi involved NCC cadets in Goa for traffic regulation along the VIP routes.[4]:36Shortly after the CHOGM ended, her daughter's medical condition worsened. Bedi applied for leave, so that she could go to Delhi and take care of her daughter. Until this point, she had not taken privilege leave in her decade-long career, and her leaves had always lapsed.[4]:37–38[17] Inspector General of Police (IGP) Rajendra Mohan recommended her leave application, but the leave was not officially sanctioned by the Goa government. Bedi left for Delhi anyway, since she had enough leaves in her account. Her daughter was hospitalized at AIIMS for one week. After her daughter was released from hospital, Bedi decided to stay in Delhi until her recovery. Bedi sent a personal letter to the IGP, as well as a detailed explanation to the Goa government, with medical reports and certificates. However, in a statement to United News of India (UNI), the Goa Chief Minister Pratapsingh Rane declared her absconding and absent without leave. After seeing Bedi's daughter's condition in Delhi, UNI published a rebuttal to the Chief Minister's statement. This made Goa government even more hostile to Bedi.[4]:37–38§Back to Delhi[edit]After being declared absent without sanctioned leave, Bedi was not given any assignment for six months. When her daughter's condition became stable, she met the Union Home Secretary TN Chaturvedi, who reinstated her. She was assigned to the Railway Protection Force in New Delhi, as an Assistant Inspector General of Police. Six months later, after appealing to a senior official in Prime Minister's Office, she was reassigned to the Department of Industrial Development, as a deputy director. There, she worked under the Directorate General of Industrial Contingency (DGIC), as a strike mediator between labor and management. Bedi left DGIC in October 1985, and shortly after her departure, the organization was wound up as part of an economy drive.[4]:38In 1985, Police Commissioner Ved Marwah made a special request for Bedi to be assigned to the police headquarters. There, Bedi cleared several pending files and sanctioned 1,600 promotions in a single day to motivate the staff.[5]§Campaign against drugs[edit]In 1986, Bedi became DGP of Delhi's North District, where the primary problem was drug abuse. At that time, Delhi had only one centre for treatment of drug addicts – Ashiana, which was run by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation. With help from her superiors, Bedi set up a detox center in one of the police premises. The center relied on community donations of furniture, blankets, medicines and other supplies. It also received voluntary services from doctors and yoga teachers. Within a year, five more detox centers were set up. Each center was intended to serve up to 30 patients, but at one time, each center catered to around 100 patients. The initiative was widely noticed, and Bedi travelled all over India, giving presentations and lectures on the programme. Before she was transferred to a new post, she and 15 other police officers institutionalized the detox centers as Navjyoti Police Foundation for Correction, De-addiction and Rehabilitation. Bedi served as the General Secretary of the Foundation.[4]:40–41§Lawyers' strike[edit]In the 1980s, Bedi attracted ire of Delhi politicians and lawyers. First, she ordered lathi charge on a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) assembly in Red Fort area, and arrested its leaders. A few months later, she arrested Congress(I) MP J.P. Agarwal for violating curfew orders.[17]In January 1988, the Delhi Police caught a man stealing from a girl's purse at St. Stephen's College. A few weeks later, he was arrested again for trespassing into a women's toilet and writing obscene graffitiinside.[19] One of Bedi's officers arrested and handcuffed the man. When he was produced in the court, he was recognized as Rajesh Agnihotri, a lawyer practicing at the Tis Hazari Courts Complex. The man had given a different name when he was arrested, and his lawyer colleagues claimed that he had been falsely framed.[5] The protesters also argued that lawyers must not be handcuffed even if there are proper grounds for their arrest. Bedi vociferously defended her officer's action.[17] The lawyers organized a strike and led a procession to DCP (North) office. Not finding DCP Bedi at the office, the lawyers manhandled Additional DCP Sandhu. This led to a scuffle between the cops and the lawyers. The lawyers escalated their strike, and several politicians supported the lawyers in demanding suspension of Bedi.[5]On 21 January, the police lathi-charged the striking lawyers in Tis Hazari complex.[20] This further enraged the lawyers. On 17 February, a mob of an estimated 600–1000 people led by the Congress corporatorRajesh Yadav arrived at Tis Hazari court. The mob was armed with brickbats, hockey sticks and small rods. It raised slogans in support of Bedi and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. It stoned the lawyers' chambers and smashed the windscreens of their cars. The police force deployed in the area did not try to stop the mob violence, although some individual policemen tried to control the mob. Bedi denied any connivance in the incident.[21][22] The police arrested Rajesh Yadav, and charged him with rioting and conspiracy. The Congress distanced itself from Yadav and ousted him.[22]For the next two months, the lawyers stopped courts from functioning in Delhi and neighbouring states, demanding Bedi's resignation. The strike was called off after the Delhi High Court constituted a two-judge committee to investigate the matter. Known as Wadhwa Commission, the committee consisted of Justice DP Wadhwa and Justice NN Goswamy. KK Venugopal, the lawyers' counsel, produced evidence that on 17 February, all police stations in the zone knew that a 2000-strong mob was heading towards Tis Hazari Courts Complex, where the lawyers were on a hunger strike. Despite this, no police force was deputed to protect them. In its interim report, the Commission expressed concern over police lapses. The judges said that they wanted to investigate the matter further, and recommended transfer of five police officers (including Bedi) out of North Delhi, during the investigation period. Even before the report was made public, in April 1988, the Union Government transferred Bedi to the post of Deputy Director (Operations) in the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), also in Delhi. Two days later, the four other officers mentioned in the report were also transferred.[21]The members of the Delhi Bar Association were not satisfied with Bedi's transfer, and wanted her suspended. However, the Police Commissioner Ved Marwah refused to suspend Bedi.[21] The Commission's final report, released in April 1990, censured all the parties.[5] The report stated that the arrest of Rajesh Agnihotri was justified, but his handcuffing was illegal. It also concluded that an "indiscriminate and unjustified" lathi-charge on the lawyers was ordered by Bedi, and that she had connived with the municipal councillor to organize the mob attack on the lawyers.[23] The scholarly legal commentary was divided, with some supporting Bedi, citing her "unblemished" service record.[19]§Mizoram[edit]After Bedi was censured by the Wadhwa Commission, it was decided to transfer her out of Delhi. She wanted a challenging posting in either Andamans, Arunachal Pradesh or Mizoram. She hoped that this would lead to her reassignment to Delhi Police after a few years (after "hard" postings, government servants are unofficially entitled to a post they desire). She requested Joint Secretary (Union Territories) to transfer her to Mizoram, a remote border state in North-East India. When she didn't get any firm response, she wrote to the home secretary Naresh Kumar. Along with Bedi's batchmate Parminder Singh, Naresh Kumar convinced the Joint Secretary to transfer her to Mizoram. They pointed out that officers who were given Mizoram posting refused to go there, while Bedi was volunteering to go there. Bedi reported to the Mizoram Government in Aizawl on 27 April 1990. Her designation was Deputy Inspector General (Range). Her father, mother, and daughter also moved to Mizoram.[4]:42–43Consumption of alcohol, especially home-brewed rice liquor Zu, was very common in Mizoram. Several of Bedi's officers were alcoholics. At first, she didn't stop them since Zu was a part of Mizo culture, and she didn't want to be seen as someone who interfered with the local culture. Later, she opened an indoor de-addiction facility for alcoholic policemen. The major crimes in the district were heroin smuggling across the Burmese border. A number of teenagers were drug addicts, with proxyvon and heroin being the most common drugs. Most of the repeat criminal offenders were alcoholic. Since Mizoram was aChristian-majority state, Bedi utilized Christian prayers to reduce drug and alcohol-induced criminal behavior. She declared Saturdays "prayer and rehabilitation day" at district police stations, despite protests from the Superintendent of Police, who was an atheist. Every Saturday, past criminals would be brought to the police station to pray and learn and to receive treatment for alcoholism.[4]:43–44While in Mizoram, she completed a major part of her Ph.D. research. (Later, in September 1993, she was awarded a doctorate by IIT Delhi's Department of Social Sciences, for her thesis on Drug Abuse and Domestic Violence.)[4]:43 During her stay in Mizoram, she also started writing her autobiography.In September 1992, her daughter Sukriti applied for a seat in Lady Harding Medical College (Delhi), under a quota for Mizoram residents. Students of Mizoram launched a violent agitation against the allocation, on the grounds that she was a non-Mizo. Sukriti had topped the merit list with 89% marks, and was given seat from the Central pool, according to the government guidelines. Mizoram's Chief Minister Lal Thanhawla asked her to surrender the seat in "the larger interests of the state", although he accepted that "there was nothing illegal in her daughter getting the seat". Bedi refused to surrender the seat, saying that her daughter deserved the seat.[24]As the protests turned violent, Bedi received threats that her house would be set on fire. Her superiors told her that they could no longer protect her.[4]:44 She left Aizawl after submitting her leave application. Her parents and daughter had already left for Delhi by this time. Lal Thanhawla accused her of insubordination.[24]§As Delhi Prisons Inspector-General[edit]After leaving her Mizoram assignment incomplete in September 1992, Bedi had to wait eight months for a new posting. In May 1993, she was posted to the Delhi Prisons as inspector general (IG). The Tihar Jail of Delhi was built as a four-jail complex with a capacity of 2,500 prisoners. However, by the time Bedi became its in-charge, its prisoner population varied from 8,000 to 9,500. About 90% of its inmates were undertrials, who had been accused of non-bailable offences. Some of them had been waiting for years to get a trial in a badly clogged court system. The prison had a budget of15 crore, which was just enough to pay for basic expenditure, leaving little for welfare programmes. Tihar was notorious as a violent and unmanageable place, and no officer wanted to be posted there. The post had been lying vacant for nine months, before Bedi was posted there.[25]Bedi decided to turn Tihar into a model prison. She introduced several reforms. She arranged separate barracks for the hardened criminals, who used their time in prison to recruit gang members, sell contraband and extort money. These prisoners unsuccessfully challenged Bedi in court for unfairly segregating them.[11]For other prisoners, Bedi arranged vocational training with certificates, so that they could find a job after their release. During her tenure, Indira Gandhi National Open University and National Open School set up their centers inside the prison.[2] Legal cells were set up to help the undertrials.[25] Bedi banned smoking in the prison. The move faced a lot of resistance from the staff as well as the prisoners. She introduced yoga and Vipassana meditation classes to change the prisoners' attitudes. She organized additional activities such as sports, prayer, and festival celebrations. She also established a de-addiction center, and pulled up or imprisoned the staff members involved in drug supply.[5] A bank was also opened inside the prison.[2] A bakery and small manufacturing units, including carpentry and weaving units, were set up in the jail. The profits from the products sold were put into the prisoners' welfare fund.[5]Bedi went on daily prison tours, observing the staff, listening to prisoners'complaints, inspecting food quality and evaluating overall management. She developed a panchayat system, where prisoners who were respected for their age, education, or character represented other inmates and met every evening with senior officers to sort out problems. She also established petition boxes so that prisoners could write to the IG about any issue. While the jail had suggestion boxes earlier too, the jail staff would destroy the complaints received through these boxes. On the other hand, the prisoners writing to Bedi received acknowledgment and information about the status of their petition.[5]In this prison reform programme, Bedi involved outsiders – including NGOs, schools, civilians and former inmates.[25] As a result of Bedi's reforms, there was a drop in the fights and disturbances in the jail.[5]Even the hardened criminals, who had been isolated in separate barracks, started behaving well. Bedi then arranged for them to attend education and meditation courses.[11]In May 1994, Bedi organized a 'health day', during which around 400 doctors and paramedics were invited to attend to Tihar's patients. Based on visits to two of Tihar's adolescent wards, a cardiologist associated with the Delhi Government's AIDS Control Programme, claimed that two-thirds of the inmates had acknowledged engaging in homosexual acts. He recommended distribution of condoms in the prison, a move supported by Delhi's Health Minister Harsh Vardhan and National AIDS Control Organisation. However, Kiran Bedi opposed the move pointing out that there were no HIV+ prisoners in Tihar. She stated that the distribution of condoms would encourage homosexual activity (illegal as per Section 377) among criminals. Based on a survey conducted through petition boxes, she claimed that incidence of consensual homosexual activity was negligible, and that the doctor's claim had hurt her prisoners. In response, the activist group ABVA filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court demanding distribution of condoms in Tihar. Bedi termed the move as an attempt to force "western solutions" on "Tihar Ashram", and filed a counter affidavit opposing the demand.[26][27]§Removal from Tihar[edit]Bedi's reform programme at Tihar received worldwide acclaim. But it also attracted envy from her superiors, who accused her of diluting prison security for personal glory. She was not on good terms with her immediate supervisor in the government, the Minister for Prisons Harsharan Singh Balli. Many members of Balli's party, the BJP, had not forgiven Bedi for her lathi charge on the party's assembly in the 1980s. However, until March 1995, Bedi was on good terms with BJP's Delhi Chief Minister Madan Lal Khurana. Khurana was a prisoner in Tihar during the Emergency, and appreciated her work for prisoners.[28]In 1994, Bedi was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award and the Nehru Fellowship. The Magsaysay Foundation recognized her leadership and innovations in crime control, drug rehabilitation, and humane prison reform. The US President Bill Clinton invited her to National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.. When the Delhi Government refused to let her accept the invitation, Bedi lobbied with the Union Home Ministry to get the clearance. However, the Home Minister S.B. Chavan declined the permission. Clinton repeated the invitation in 1995, and this time, Bedi approached the media. The New York Timespublished a report stating that "several politicians and her superiors were feeling cut up with her assertive style and the success that followed her". Under pressure from the public and the media, Chavan allowed Bedi to attend the Breakfast. However, this episode won her several detractors in the government.[28][29]Sometime later, Bedi was invited by the United Nations to discuss social reintegration of prisoners at the Copenhagen Social Summit. When the Delhi Government refused to permit her, Bedi met the Minister of State for Home Rajesh Pilot on 4 March 1995. The meeting got extended, because of which Bedi had to cancel an appointment she had with the Chief Minister Khurana. Pilot gave her the permission, but this irked Khurana, who later exclaimed "If she thinks we have no importance, then why does she want to work for the Delhi Government?"[28] While Bedi was in Copenhagen, the prominent farmers' leaderMahendra Singh Tikait was imprisoned in Tihar after a rally, and sought the BJP leaders' help in getting a hookah inside. However, the jail authorities refused to give permission for a hookah, since Bedi had earlier declared Tihar a no-smoking zone.[28]Subsequently, Delhi's Lieutenant Governor P.K. Dave wrote a letter to the Union Home Secretary K. Padmanabhiah, accusing Bedi of "manipulating foreign trips", and leveled other charges against her. Dave accused Bedi of "compromising" the prison's security by allowing visitors – including American officials and foreign TV crews – inside the jail, without the Delhi government's permission. Another charge was that she had allowed NHRC representatives to meet TADA detainees from Kashmir, who had raised anti-national slogans. In her defence, Bedi argued that the TADA detainees had gone on a relay hunger strike demanding speedy trials. She also stated that the foreign TV crews had only shot the Vipassana meditation classes, and that she had the right to admit them under the rules. She also pointed out that the Union Government had itself asked her to allow the Americans – Lee P. Brown and Christine Wisner (wife of Frank G. Wisner) – inside the prison.[28]Another charge against Bedi was giving undue favours to the notorious criminal Charles Sobhraj. At that time, the Delhi Jail Manual (written in 1894 and modified in 1988) listed a number of prohibited articles, one of which was a typewriter. However, the manual also gave the jail superintendent the power to allow any of these prohibited items in special cases. Using this power, Bedi permitted Sobhraj the use of an electronic typewriter (Sobhraj had already been given a manual typewriter before Bedi became the officer in-charge). Bedi had also allowed NGOs to start typing classes for prisoners, but Sobhraj claimed that he was using the typewriter to write her biography, which gave the authorities a reason to accuse Bedi of misusing her powers. Khurana also alleged that Sobhraj had been supplied with a pipe and foreign-made cigars, a charge refuted by the testimony of Sobhraj's former cell-mate. The prison manual also had an antiquated rule which stated that "caught escapees will wear a red cap". Sobhraj had escaped in 1986, before he was recaptured. Khurana alleged that Bedi had specially exempted him from wearing a red cap. However, a senior jail officer stated that he had never seen the 'red cap' rule being implemented in Tihar.[29][30]PK Dave and Madan Lal Khurana united to get Bedi removed as the prisons in-charge on 3 May 1995. Bedi accused "unethical politicians" of "telling lies, making false allegations and misinforming people". She alleged that her supervisors in the government had no "interest, vision or leadership". She argued that she should not have been transferred on the basis of unverified charges, and demanded an inquiry committee. Rajesh Pilot defended her publicly, but the Union Government did not officially support her. Khushwant Singh stated that her transfer was "a victory for a handful of small-minded, envious people over a gutsy woman".[28]§After Tihar[edit]After her removal from Tihar, Bedi was posted as head of training at the police academy on 4 May 1995.[29] Her designation was Additional Commissioner (policy and planning).[28] She served as the Joint Commissioner of Police of Delhi Police. Later, she served as the Special Commissioner (Intelligence) of Delhi Police.On 5 April 1999, she was appointed as Inspector-General of Police in Chandigarh. Her mother accompanied her, but soon suffered a suffered a stroke and went into coma. Bedi requested a transfer back to Delhi, where her family would be able to take care of her mother. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs transferred her back to Delhi on 15 May. However, her mother died in Delhi three days later, after having been in coma for 41 days.[4]:72In 2003, Bedi became the first woman to be appointed the United Nations civilian police adviser. She worked in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations.[31] In 2005, she returned to Delhi after her UN stint. The Delhi Bar Association lobbied to ensure that she didn't get a post that would put her on track to become Delhi's police chief. The lawyers, who had still not forgiven Bedi for the 1988 controversy, wrote to government authorities arguing that Bedi's appointment to a top most might "unnecessarily create a conflict between the legal fraternity and the police".[32] She was made the Director General, Home Guards. Before her retirement, she was serving as the Director General of the Bureau of Police Research and Development.In 2007, Bedi applied for the post of Delhi Police Commissioner. She was overlooked in favour of Yudhvir Singh Dadwal, who was junior to her, reportedly because the senior bureaucrats saw her as too "outspoken and radical". Bedi alleged bias, and stated that her merit had been overlooked.[33] She also proceeded for a three-month 'protest leave', but canceled it later.[34] Journalists like Karan Thapar and Pankaj Vohra criticized her for crying bias, and stated that her service record was tainted with controversies like incomplete Goa, Mizoram and Chandigarh assignments; the lawyers' strike controversy; and the removal from Tihar.[35][36]Bedi resigned from police service in November 2007, citing personal reasons. She stated that she wanted to focus on academic and social work.[37]§Social activism[edit]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kiran_Bedi_at_the_SWIM_Conference.JPGBedi at Successful Women in Management (SWIM) Conference in 2009The Navjyoti Delhi Police Foundation founded by Bedi and her colleagues was renamed to Navjyoti India Foundation in 2007. Since its establishment, the Foundation received strong support from the local communities, as well several Indian and foreign charitable trusts and government bodies. Over next 25 years, it provided residential treatment to nearly 20,000 drug and alcohol addicts. It also started crime prevention programmes such as education of street children and slum kids. It established 200 single-teacher schools, vocational training centers, health care facilities and counselling centers for the vulnerable sections of society. In 2010, it also established the Navjyoti Community College, affiliated to IGNOU.[4]:40–41Bedi set up India Vision Foundation (IVF) in 1994. IVF works in fields of police reforms, prison reforms, women empowerment and rural and community development.[38]In police reform area, Bedi emphasized better training, while opposing hazing of trainees. She opposed frequent transfers, stating that these lead to poor cadre management. She also proposed creation of a new level of police administration, which would protect rank-and-file officers from politicians and bureaucrats. In women's rights area, she has advocated equitable educational opportunities and property ownership (including co-ownership) for women. She has emphasized faster empowerment of rural women.[11]During 2008–11, Bedi hosted the reality TV show Aap Ki Kachehri on STAR Plus. In this court show, Bedi resolved everyday conflicts in a simulated courtroom.[39] In 2008, she launched the website Mission Safer India, to help people whose complaints are not accepted by the local police.[40]§Anti-corruption movement[edit]In October 2010, Arvind Kejriwal invited Bedi to join him in exposing the CWG scam. Bedi accepted the invitation, and by 2011, the two had allied with other activists, including Anna Hazare, to form India Against Corruption (IAC) group. Their campaign evolved into the 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement.[41] Anna Hazare planned an indefinite hunger strike to demand the passage of a stronger Jan Lokpal Bill in the Indian Parliament. On 16 August 2011, Bedi and other key members of IAC were detained by the police, four hours before the hunger strike could start.[42] Bedi and other activists were released later on the same day.[43] After twelve days of protests and many discussions between the government and the activists, the Parliament passed a resolution to consider three points in drafting of Lokpal bill.[44]Some members of parliament proposed to bring a breach of privilege motion against Bedi and other activists for allegedly mocking the parliamentarians during the Lokpal bill protests,[45] however they withdrew these notices later.[46]During the anti-corruption movement, Bedi faced controversy when some newspapers questioned discrepancies in her past travel expenses between 2006 and 2011. In 2009, for example, Bedi was invited as the keynote speaker at a conference arranged by Aviation Industry Employees Guild. She accepted the invitation without a speaking fee, but her NGO was to be reimbursed for travel expenses. Bedi's travel agent Flywell, invoiced her hosts business class fare for air tickets, but arranged Bedi to travel in economy class.[47] Between 2006 and 2011, there were several discrepancies in travel-related expense statements, as well as instances where she travelled at no cost to her hosts for a cause. In these cases, Bedi stated she did not personally receive or incur the disputed difference, only India Vision Foundation did, an NGO she headed.[48][49] In November 2011, the Delhi Police, under directions of the additional chief metropolitan magistrate, registered an FIR – police case for cognizable offense – against Bedi for allegedly misappropriating funds through Indian Vision Foundation and other NGOs.[50][51] The investigation that followed found no evidence of fraud against her or of siphoning of NGO funds for personal use, and subsequently filed closure of the case.[