IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (Crl) NO. OF 2017

(Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

IN THE MATTER OF

1. Chandrasekhara Pillai.s
General Secretary,Welfare Association
Of Ex Army Aviation Technicians
s/o of Sivasankara Pillai,
Age 54 years Occ. Ex. Serviceman
/ Businessman R/o TC 31/1173 (1)
ThazhasseryPettah, P.O. Trivandrum,
Kerala 695024 Petitioner No.1

2. Adv. George P.J.

Age: 56 years, Occ.: Advocate
President,Welfare Association of
Ex Army Aviation Technicians
Padinjarekara House
Kaniyaram,P.O. Mananthavady
Wayanad Kerala 670645 ...Petitioner no.2

Versus

1. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Defence
South Block, New Delhi ...Respondent No.1

2. The Chief of Army Staff,

South Block,
Integrated Headquaters of MOD ( Army)
New Delhi-110011
Respondent No.2
3. The Officer Incharge
P.S. Devlali Camp
District Nasik, Maharashtra Respondent No.3

4. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Department of Home, MantralayaRespondent No.4
Mumbai.

All are Contesting Respondents

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR PROTECTION OF RIGHT TO
LIFE AS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND FOR SEEKING ISSUANCE
OFWRIT/ WRITS / DIRECTIONS/ ORDER WRIT BEING
IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND 2 DIRECTING ABOLITION
AND DISCONTINUATION OF THE SAHAYAK/ BUDDY
SYSTEM AS PREVALENT IN THE INDIAN ARMY; AND
FOR ISSSUANCE OF WRIT/WRITS / DIRECTIONS/
ORDER WRIT BEING IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS
TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND 2 DIRECTING
ABOLITION TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO
INVESTIGATE THE UNNATURAL DEATH OF THE
GUNNER ROY MATHEW IN A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL
MANNER KEEPING IN VIEW ENTIRETY OF
CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIAL S UNDER THE
SUPERVISION OF THIS HONBLE COURT

TO:

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS OTHER

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHWETH:

1. The present Writ Petition by way of Public

Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India is being filed raising an

issue of great Public importance as by way of

present Public Interest Litigation, the Petitioners

are praying for protection of Article 21 of the constitution

of India guaranteeing right to life, which includes right to

live with dignity. That vide the present petition the

petitioners are not only seeking the discontinuance of

Sahayak system prevalent in the Army but also seeking a

fair, complete and thorough investigation into the death of

Gunner Roy Mathew whose death has been shown as

suicide by the army which does not seems to be the case.

1A. That the Petitioner has no personal gain, private motive

or oblique reason in filing the present Public Interest

Litigation.

2. The Petitioner no.1 is the retired army personnel

and is the General Secretary of the Welfare

Association of Ex Army Aviation Technicians.

The complete name and address of the Petitioner

 is as mentioned above, the email address is

vertexchandran@gmail.com and his Pan card

No. is AJKPP0354M and his income is about Rs.

4,50,000/- he has taxable income. That the

Petitioner no.2 is also a retired army personnel

and President of the Welfare Association of Ex

Army Aviation Technicians. The complete name

and address of the Petitioners is as mentioned

above, the email address is

advgeorgepj@gmail.com and his income is about

Rs. 3,50,000/- pan card No. is ALYPJ8017D

and his income below taxable limit. That

there are no civil, criminal or revenue litigation involving

the Petitioners which has or could have a legal nexus with

the issues involved in the PIL. That the Petitioners have

not approached the any authority seeking similar reliefs as

prayed for in the present Petition in view of the

recommendations of the Standing Committee of Defence

and the circular 19.01.2017. However in view of the

emergent situations wherein one of the Sahayak has

allegedly committed suicide, the Petitioners are filling the

present Petition without waiting for making any formal

representation to appropriate authorities. In fact both the

Petitioners are actively associated with Welfare

Association of Ex Army Aviation Technicians established

on 11.12.2014 whichtakes care of the any retired Jawans

and their families and helps and provide assistance to

them.

3. The Respondent No 1 is the Union of India

through Ministry of Defence, Respondent No. 2

is the Chief of Army Staff, Respondent No 3 is

Officer In-Charge of P.S. Devlali Camp, District

Nasik Maharashtra and Respondent No.4 is

State of Maharashtra through Department of

Home.

4. That vide the present Writ Petition the Petitioner

is praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus,

Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ /

order / direction as may be deemed fit and

proper in facts and circumstances of the present

Case, for abolition/discontinuation of

Sahayak/Buddy system as well as for fair and

impartial investigation into the death of Roy

Mathew as it is not only relates to manipulating

 evidence and hushing up criminal offences, but

also point to systematic subversion of the Rule

of Law and criminal justice system, if allowed to

proceed unchecked. It is further stated that all

the Respondents No. 1 to 4 are amenable to Writ

jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution

as all the Respondents come within the

Definition of State in Article 12 of the

Constitution of India.

5. The Sahayak System which is Colonial legacy as prevalent

in Indian Army has been explicitly deprecated by the

Parliamentary Standing Committee in its Report in 2009,

as it amounts to exploitation of army jawan. That the

Committee had recommended its discontinuance in future.

Despite this recommendation the Respondent No. 1 and 2

has continued with the system and had failed to prevent

its misuse and ill-treatment to the

Jawans/Sahayaks/Soldiers. The system has no legal or

practical rationale as the same has not arisen out of any

Statute/Rules and Regulation andinfact the Air Force and

Navy do not have any such system prevalent, which further

 establishes the fact that there is a need to abolish the

system. True copy of the extract from the report of the

Standing Committee on Defence ( 2008-2009) ( Fourteenth

LokSabha) Ministry of Defence on Stess Management in

Armed Forces, Thirthy First Report is annexed hereto and

marked as Annexure P 1 ( Pages ..... to ....... )

6. That the Respondent No. 2 and 3 had been compelled to

issue a Circular no. 6413/15/A3 dated 19.01.2017

regarding Dignity of serving soldier: Buddy Duties,

wherein it has been clearly mandated that the Sahayaks

are not to be ill-treated by the Officers. The issuance of

Circular is indirect admission on the part of Respondents

that there has been misuse of Sahayak/Buddy System to

certain extent. The Circular clearly mandated that

Sahayaks/Buddysare not to be taking care of Pets, nor

they should look after children of officers and not to wash

Pvt. Vehicles of Officers,that the Circular however do not

provide for any action in case the misuse continues by the

erring Officers as it states that the detailed guidelines

regarding the subject is to be issued subsequently. That no

 such detailed guidelines have been issued to the best of

the knowledge of the Petitioners. Therefore it appears, that

the Circular is merely an eyewashcreated by the

Respondents without having any genuine concerns for the

sufferings of the Sahayaks.True copy of the Circular no.

6413/15/A3 dated 19.01.2017 regarding Dignity of

serving soldier: Buddy Duties is annexed herewith and is

marked as Annexure P-2 Pages ( to ).

6. That on the morning of 04.03.2017 Petitioners read in the

newspaper about the death of Gunner Roy Mathew and

that the dead body of Gunner Roy Mathew would be

arriving at the Trivandrum Airport in the morning by flight

from Mumbai. Accordingly Petitioner No.1 along with 6

members of his association reached the Trivandrum

airport at around 9.00a.m. in the morning. At the airport

they met the family members of the deceased Gunner Roy

Mathew who were also waiting there to receive the body of

the deceased Gunner Roy Mathew and offered their

condolences to the family members present there. That

during the formal interaction with the family members

Petitioner no.1 came to learn that deceased Gunner Roy

Mathew was a strong man who was planning his future

and had also bought land to build a house and during

their conversation on phone would talk about his

futureplan and therefore there was no reason for him to

commit suicide. That the family members informed the

petitioners that when someone from the family had called

up army at Devlali, on 27.02.2017, it was informed by the

army personal that Roy Methew is missing. And family

members were informed on 02.03.2017 that Roy Methews

dead body has been found and it has decomposed to great

extents so they would like to bury him in Devlali itself.

Hearing this the family members became suspicious. The

petitioner no.1 interacted with the army men

accompanying the body of the Gunner Roy Mathew and

learned that he was a strong headed man who could not

have committed suicide for the reasons that he had

unknowingly interacted with journalist and talked about

the jawans serving as sahayak attached to their officers.

They also told the petitioner no.1 that there must have

been something wrong as there was no reason for him to

 commit suicide. That the entire circumstances raised

apprehension of some foul play and therefore Petitioner

no.1 and the entire family of the deceased got more

suspicious about his death. Family members of the

deceased and Petitioner no.1 along with his associates

demanded for second post mortem of the body and waited

for one hour at the airport to get body from Army to local

police. Police after receiving the body from the army,

handed it over to the Trivandrum Medical college for

second postmortem.

7. That on 19.03.2017Petitioners along with 6 members from

his association went to the house of the deceased Gunner

Roy Mathew in Kollam to convey condolences on behalf of

the association and to extend support to the family. There

Petitioner no.1 met Roy Mathews wife, uncle Mr.Gracius,

who told Petitioner no.1 that there was no reason for Roy

Mathew to commit suicide as he was planning his future

as he had already served 13 and half years in the army

and after completion of 15 years of service he would be

eligible for pension and thereafter he would take voluntary

retirement from the service. He had purchased land near

 by his house in December 2016 to construct a house. So

there was no reason for him to commit suicide being a

strong will man.

9. That on 27.03.2017Mr.Gracius told Petitioner no.1 on

phone that a Retired Major General had come to the house

of the deceased Gunner Roy Mathew on 25/26 th March

and told the family members that they have to sign all the

relevant papers which Devlali army men will give them.

While talking to them Major General pressurized them to

do as told by him. He also informed the Petitioner no.1

that on the same day i.e. on 27.03.2017 two army men

from Devlali reached the deceased Roy Mathews home in

Kollam and asked the immediate family members i.e.

father, mother and wife of the deceased to sign the

documents brought by them and also accompany them to

Devlali to record their statements. The army men had

brought with them some documents to be signed by the

family members of the deceased. One of the documents,

which was some kind of a form filled by pencil, hence the

family refused to sign the form. Another document was a

 statement prepared by the army which stated that Roy

Mathew had hanged himself and committed suicide. The

family also refused to sign this statement despite being

pressurized by the army men. Mr.Gracius also informed

the petitioner no.1 that on same day one army man took

the family to Sanik Board office in Kollam to get a counter

sign of DistricSainik Board officer but here too the Officer

refused to sign the form for the reasons that it was filled by

a pencil which could be changed later on.

10. That on 03.04.2017, around 11p.m. Petitioner No.2 George

P.J. along with deceased Gunner Roy Mathews family

reached Devlali as requested by the army. They were

received by army officers namely Brigadier PradeepKaul

and Brigadier Dey at the army guest named B Mess.

These army officers expressed condolences to the family.

11. That on 04.04.2017, the army officers took the family

members and the Petitioner no.2 to show the places like

the abandoned barrack where deceased Gunner Roy

Mathew committed suicide and to his living quarters where

he used to live. It is submitted that Petitioner no.2 and the

family members were given a superficial and a hurried

round of the places under the constant monitoring of the

army men so that no one can take photographs of the

crime scene and surroundings in a calm contemplated

manner. However, whatever minimum Petitioner no.2 and

the family members were exposed to in a hurried manner

was itself a tell-tale story which clearly established that:

i. That the room where body was found was bare and

had no support from where deceased Mathew could

have climbed to put the noose around his neck and

then remove the support to end his life by hanging. It

becomes clear from the photograph shown from the

police record to the family and the Petitioner No. 2

ii. That the abandoned barrack was so near to living

barracks, that a body could have never been lying

there for more than four days, the smell, stench of

decomposition would have attracted jawans living in

barracks hardly 50 metres away and animals like

 dogs certainly would have created alarm long time

back.

iii. That the barracks are supposed to be locked and

constantly under surveillance, especially

after Pathankot attack.

iv. That Roy Mathew was missing and a search was on

for him so how could his body not be found for 4 days

not far from place he lived

v. That the suicide note allegedly written by deceased

Mathew read by the Petitioner appeared to him a

dictated document, and read more like an apology,

where no express intention of suicide was expressed,

it mentioned time in a peculiar manner and is written

in a very artificial language in terminology not

normally used by a person like the deceased

 vi. That the police skirted showing video tape of scene of

suicide, probably has not made it deliberately

vii. That no record showing narration of who first noticed

the body and reported it as is normally expected

seems to be there and in any case has not been

revealed to the family and Petitioner.

viii. That two army officers, Col J V Javade and

Major Aniket were at all times at the Police Station

when statement of family was being recorded and

were openly directing the I.O. in Marathi, that the

statement must implicate the scribe otherwise it is of

no use, which Petitioner could overhear and

understand

12. That on 05.04.2017 the family of the deceased along with

Petitioner no.2 met the Commandant of Devlali Camp Lt.

General B.S.Salaria, VSM at his office. He expressed his

deep condolences to the family and assured that the

deceased wife will get a job and other benefits from the
army within 3 months.From Commandants office the

family members and Petitioner no.2 went to Devlali camp

Police station to record their statements. At the police

station, Petitioner no. 2 observed that the investigating

officer API Lokare was tutoring and forcing the deceased

wife to sign a statement stating that the deceased Gunner

Roy Mathew committed suicide because of the video

published by The Quint. At the police station, two army

officers were also present while family members

statements were recorded in their presence. These two

officers were Colonel J.V.Javade, Col Administration of

Devlali Cantonment and Major Aniket from Administration

of Devlali Cantonment. These two army officers were

constantly instructing ASI Lokarein Marathi to prepare a

statement which mentions the name of Poonam Agarwal,

the journalist who did the story on Sahayeksystem

prevailing in the army. These army officers said that the

deceased wife should sign the statement which says that

the deceased committed suicide because of the video made

by Poonam Agarwal. They also said that the statement

would be meaningless without mentioning Poonam

 Agarwals name. But the deceased wife refused to sign

such a statement because she said that she never heard of

Poonam Agarwal nor did the deceased ever mention this

name to her. Despite deceaseds wifes reluctance to sign

such a statement, the police and the army officers coerced

and forced her to sign on such a statement which was

written in Marathi, a language that she did not

understand.

13. That on 06.04.2017, the family members along with

Petitioner no. 2 were again called to the Devlali Camp

Police Station. The parents of Gunner Roy Mathew were

made to sign another statement stating that the deceased

never had any problem while serving in the army and he

committed suicide because of the video made by the

journalist PoonamAgarwal. Petitioner 2 who acted as a

translator from English/Hindi to Malyalam signed the

statements as a witness, and raised objdections to such

coercion however, since the family members as well as the

petitioner no. towere under constant pressure, they had no

option but to sign.

14. That on 07.04.2017,the wife of Gunner Roy Mathew was

called by Brigadier Gopi Iyar, who is conducting court of

inquiry into the unnatural death of Gunner Roy Mathew

for her statement. Petitioner no.2 was not allowed to be

present in this meeting. After the meeting was over, the

deceased wife told the Petitioner no.2 that here too she was

forced to sign a similar statement as given to the police at

Devlali.

15. That on 08.04.2017, around 11 a.m. morning, the family

and the Petitioner no. 2 left for Mumbai in a car. They

reached Mumbai around 5pm. From Mumbai the family

and the Petitioner 2 took train to Eranakulam. That in

view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioners

are filing the present Petition.

GROUNDS

A) Because the petitioners, who are ex army personnel

running an association of ex army men in Kerala, alarmed by a

concerted and a brazen attempt by certain serving delinquent

officers in the army who have scant regard for the Rule of Law
and human values, which they have witnessed first hand, have

been constrained to prefer the instant Writ Petition by way of

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India in order to ensure that the fair name,

reputation, image, trust and respect of Indian army as one of

the most humane and disciplined armed forces in the world is

not jeopardised by the misconduct of a few delinquents in its

ranks. These officers, in order to cover individual

misdemeanours and commission of suspected crimes are

seeking to misuse the fair name of Indian army as an

institution.

B) Because the instant matter is of great Public importance

as such misconducts, coupled by some other recurring episodes

of perceived unfairness, may lead to a feeling of class divide in

the army to get firmly ingrained, which, if allowed unchecked,

may lead to institutionalised demoralisation of jawans. The

situation today becomes more aggravated, especially in the wake

that social media provides now an outlet to air such frustrations

and helplessness felt by soldiers, and institutionalised disregard

of the same can make the grievances even more deep rooted and

pervasive.

C) because the instance at hand which has constrained the

Petitioners to move this Honble Court is directly related to the

unnatural death of Gunner Roy Matthew whose heavily

decomposed body was allegedly discovered just 50 metres away

from his living quarters on March 2, 2017, after his being

reported missing from February 25, 2017 when he allegedly

made last contact with his wife over phone.

D) Because the Petitioners, who provide a support system to the

veteran jawans and their families, got involved from the time the

dead body of deceased Roy Matthew was brought Trivandrum

Airport on 04.03.2017 and are first hand witness to the

concerted diabolical attempts by certain officers in the army to

force and browbeat the poor, destitute, psychologically

depressed and distressed family of deceased Matthew to prevent

them from raising any questions around the death of Matthew

and accept it as a suicide.

E) Because the officers deputed from Deolali Camp where the

dead body of Roy Matthew was found and others acting at their

behest made repeated attempts to somehow, by hook or crook,

through a combination of inducements, fear and coercion,

obtain a statement from the vulnerable family of deceased Roy

Matthew to attribute suicide to the scribe who did the sting

operation, which statements they failed to get in Kerala, as

family steadfastly denied to give any untruthful statements.

F) Because later, under constant and tremendous pressure the

family succumbed partly when called to Deolali camp from

03.04.2017 to 08.04.2017, which have been signed by Petitioner

2 as a witness.

G) Because thePetitioners are throughout first hand

witnesses and privy to all these happenings as they were

helping the family, knowing bit of Marathi and Malayalam.

Petitioner No. 2 has signed as witness on most of the

documents/statements obtained from the family by the police at

Deolali Police Station.

H) Because Petitioners had throughout accompanied the family

to the army camp, visited the scene of crime and on the basis of

what they witnessed first hand are more than convinced that

the unnatural death of Roy Matthew is not a suicide, the

circumstances point to definite possibilities of foul play, which is

not being allowed to be investigated due to direct interference,

influence paddling and intimidations unleashed by these very

officers whose conduct is directly open to questioning in the

wake of circumstances surrounding unnatural death of Roy

Matthew, and as such are interested parties in scuttling a fair

and truthful investigation in the matter.

I) Because the Investigating officer of Deolali Police Station and

others have ceded complete control of investigation and

witnesses to these very officers is a conduct destructive of the

Rule of Law and is a direct assault and interference in criminal

justice system and the Rule of Law.

I) Because photographs of the dead body and the abandoned

barrack seen by Petitioner No. 2 while accompanying the family

are clear and cogent testimony to the theory of suicide being

false and planted one and the subsequent attempts by Deolali

camp officials and police bring out a desperate attempt to plant

lies and falsehoods to falsely pin blame on the scribe for

abetting the suicide, to absolve themselves of any suspicion of

wrongdoing.

J) Because when the petitioners learnt through media reports

on April 11, 2017, that the scribe who carried out the sting has

filed a Writ Petition before this Honble Court seeking the

discontinuance of Sahayak system prevalent in the Army and

have prayed for a fair court monitored investigation into the

death of Gunner Roy Matthew whose unnatural death has been

conveniently and falsely shown as suicide by the army officers

in Deolali camp, Petitioners decided to approach this Hon'ble

Court.

K) Because the Petitioners, who are vitally interested in

welfare of jawans and in the present case are uniquely

positioned and armed with first hand information and insights

relating to unnatural death of Roy Mathew, felt as responsible

law abiding citizens duty bound to approach and assist this

Honble Court to ensure justice and ascertain and establish the

truth in order to help sustain the abiding faith in the rule of

law.

L) Because Petitioners feel that their failure to approach this

Honble Court would have been a case of complicity in crime

through silence and inaction and would have served to

perpetuate injustice and may lead to severe miscarriage of

justice, besides being dereliction of their fundamental duties

under the Constitution.

M) Because the Petitioners strongly believe this episode has

created deep consternation in general amongst the jawans

serving in the army amongst whom a sense of injustice is

gaining ground as the army discipline and fear of retribution not

only prevents them from airing their grievances, their minds are

surrounded by fear and a sinking feeling that tomorrow their

body may also be found hanging with a statement released as in

the case of deceased Matthew stating that the soldier took his

own life (extreme step) due to the guilt factor of letting down his

superiors or conveying false impression to an unknown

individual sending out a message that airing of grievance will

be branded a lie, and letting down officers by telling the truth is

guilt so heavy, that only death can purge it.

N) Because the hollowness of similar reasoning was summarily

discarded by Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence in

its 31st report while noting, A representative of the Army

categorically deposed before the Committee that the Jawans are

not technically supposed to attend to the household duties at

the residence of the officers and the personnel attending to

such duties do so due to their reverence. Even with this

feeling our brave heart soldiers serve dedicatedly is the highest

glory of our army, which Petitioners pray and hope will abide for

ever, which can only happen, if the hope for justice survives.

O) Because the petitioners arefiling thepresent petition as it

is matter of great Public importance as by way of present Public

Interest Litigation, the petitioner is not only seeking the

discontinuance of Sahayak system prevalent in the Army but

also seeking the fair, complete and thorough investigation into

the death of Gunner Roy Mathew whose death has been

conveniently shown as suicide by the army which is not the

case.

P) Because the Petitioner no.2 who had accompanied the

family members of the late Gunner Roy Mathew to Devlali as

they had been called to record their statements, and was

witness to the way the family members of the deceased were

forced to record their statement in the way the army personnel

tutored them against their will. All these circumstances raises

apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that unnatural

death of Gunner Roy Mathew is no ordinary death but is a fit

case requiring a fair and impartial investigation.

Q) Because Petitioner no.2 and the family

members were exposed to in a hurried manner

some evidence and photographs which

establish clearly the following:-

i. That the room where body was found was bare and

had no support from where deceased Mathew could

 have climbed to put the noose around his neck and

then remove the support to end his life by hanging. It

becomes clear from the photograph shown from the

police record to the family and the Petitioner No. 2

ii. That the abandoned barrack was so near to living

barracks, that a body could have never been lying

there for more than four days, the smell, stench of

decomposition would have attracted jawans living in

barracks hardly 50 metres away and animals like

dogs certainly would have created alarm long time

back.

ii. That the barracks are supposed to be locked and

constantly under surveillance, especially

after Pathankot attack

iii. That Roy Mathew was missing and a search was on

for him so how could his body not be found for 4 days

not far from place he lived

iv. That the suicide note allegedly written by deceased

Mathew read by the Petitioner appeared to him a

dictated document, and read more like an apology,

where no express intention of suicide was expressed,

it mentioned time in a peculiar manner and is written

in a very artificial language in terminology not

normally used by a person like the deceased

v. That the police skirted showing video tape of scene of

suicide, probably has not made it deliberately

vi. That no record showing narration of who first noticed

the body and reported it as is normally expected

seems to be there and in any case has not been

revealed to the family and Petitioner.

vii. That two army officers, Col J V Javade and

Major Aniket were at all times at the Police Station

 when statement of family was being recorded and

were openly directing the I.O. in Marathi, that the

statement must implicate the scribe otherwise it is of

no use, which Petitioner could overhear and

understand

R) Because the jurisdiction of this Honble Court under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India can not only be invoked

for protection of ones own fundamental rights but also for the

protection and safeguarding the fundamental right to life and

right to live with dignity of fellow beings.

S) Because the Sahayak System as prevalent in Indian

Army has been explicitly deprecated by the Parliamentary

Standing Committee in its Report in 2009 which had

recommended its dis-continuance in future. Despite this

recommendation the Respondent No. 1 has continued with the

system and had also failed to prevent its misuse and ill-

treatment to the Jawans/Sahayaks/Soldiers.

T) Because the Sahayak system is a legacy of colonial rule,

which needs to be abolished. That infactthe Air Force and Navy

do not have any such system prevalent.

U) Because the Circular dated 19.01.2017 has been issued,

wherein it has been clearly mandated that the Sahayaks are not

to be ill-treated by the Officers. The issuance of Circular is

indirect admission on part of Respondent No. 1 and 2 that there

has been misuse of Sahayak/Buddy System to certain extent.

The Circular clearly prohibited that Sahayaks/Buddys not to be

taking care of Pets, nor look after children and in addition not to

be doing washing of private Vehicles of Officers. Despite such

circular being issued the Sahayaks have been rampantly ill-

treated, and instead of the Army Soldiers taking pride in

dawning uniform are subjected to undue psychological

harassment and humiliation.

V) Because, the prevalence of Sahayak system in Indian Army

is not premised on any legal provision, and as such is bad in

law.
X) That the Sahayak system is in violation of Article 14, 21

and 23 of the Constitution.

Y). That the prevelance of Sahayak system is against the

doctrine of equality, as the deployment of a Army Jawan as

Sahayak is not based on any criteria , the said position not

being a commissioned post. That generally the Lower Ranks are

deployed as Sahayaks and are subjected to undue harassment

and exploitation.

Z). That the Sahayak system must be abolished as although

the Army in response to a specific query put by the

Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence on the

deployment of lower ranks as Sahayaks had responded that,

Sahayaks are authorized to Officers and Junior Commissioned

Officers in the Army when serving with units or Headquarters

functioning on War Establishment. The scale of authorization of

Sahayak is given below:- (i) One for every field officer and above.

(ii) One for every two officers of the rank of captain and below

(iii) One for every subedar major (iv) One for every two Junior

Commissioned Officers of the rank of subedar and below. The

duties assigned to Sahayaks are as under:- (i) To provide

personal protection and security. (ii) To attend telephones,

receive and deliver messages during operations, training and

exercise and in peace. (iii) To maintain weapons, uniforms and

equipment of Officers/Junior Commissioned Officers in

accordance with custom and usage in the Army. (iv) To assist in

digging trenches, erect bivouacs and shelters during war,

training or exercise while the leaders are more busy in planning,

coordination and execution of operations. (v) To be of assistance

during patrols and independent missions. (vi) To carry and

operate radio sets, maps and other military equipment during

operations, training cadres and outdoor exercises. No personnel

in Navy and Air Force are deployed on duties as Batman/

Orderly/Sahayak. However, the Committee had after thorough

enquiry had specifically recommended that 10. The Committee

understand that the practice of utilizing services of Jawans as

Sahayaks is prevalent in the Army in one form or other since

British days. It is learnt that numerous Jawans are engaged at

the residence of some of the senior officers for domestic work and

to serve the family members of officers. A representative of the

Army categorically deposed before the Committee that the

Jawans are not technically supposed to attend to the household

duties at the residence of the officers and the personnel attending

to such duties do so due to their reverence. The Committee hardly

need to stress that Jawans are recruited for serving the nation

and not to serve the family members of officers in household work

which is demeaning and humiliating. The Committee take a very

serious view of the shameful practice which should have no place

in the independent India. The Committee expect the Ministry of

Defence to issue instructions to stop forthwith the practice, which

lowers the self-esteem of Jawan. Any officer found to be violating

the instruction in this regard be dealt with severely. Similar action

needs to be taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs in respect of

para military organisations and other organisations.

AA). Because this Honble Supreme Court in the matter of

Francis Coralie Mullian vs. Administrator, Union Territory of

Delhi reported in (1981) 1 SCC 608 had held that the right to

life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution means right

to live with dignity.

BB). Because Article 23 of the Constitution guarantees rights

against exploitation and prohibits forced labour. That it is

submitted that a lower rank Jawan deployed as Sahayak when

is made to do household chores of the officer is thereby being

forced to do activities which is beyound the scope of his official

assignment and thus leads to violation of Article 23 of the

Constitution.

CC). That an inductee in army, however low the rank might be

is inspired by the spirit of serving the nation and as such

forcing him to do personal chores for the officer violates the

sense of pride that a person has when joining Army and as such

is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.

DD). That the Sahayak system needs to be abolished as no such

system is prevelant in either Indian Air force and Indian Navy.

EE). That the death of Gunner Roy Mathew may kindly be

investigated upon as his death has been given the colour of

suicide which does not seem to be the case and the facts and

circumstances of the said case raise serious apperehension in

the mind of the Petitioners that it is not a case of suicide.

FF) Becauise this Honble Court has directed court monitored

investigations in the past, if the situation so demands. That the

Petitioners have firm belief that truth shall not come out form

the in house enquiry carried out by the Army, as the Army

officials have been forcing and coercing the family of the

deceased Gunner Mathew to make statements that they do not

personally believe to be correct. In such circumstance a fair and

impartial investigation under the supervision of this Honble

Court shall sub serve the interest of justice and shall unravel

the truth.

GG) Petitioners crave leave of this Honble Court to raise such

further grounds as are available to them during course of

arguments.

16. The petitioners have not fi led any other petition

seeking same reliefs in this Honble Cour t or any

other High Cour t in the countr y.

17. The Petitioners have no other alter nate equally

effi cacious remedy than to approach this Honble

Cour t.

18. The Petitioner craves leave to alter, amend, delete

any of the aforestated grounds if necessar y.

PRAYER

In light of the facts and circumstances of this case, the

Petitioners prays that this Honble Cour t may be pleased

to:

a. allow the present petition and issue wr it/ wr its /

direction/order, wr it being in the nature of

mandamus to the Respondent No. 1 and 2 directing

abolition and discontinuation of the Sahayak/

Buddy system as prevalent in the Indian Army;

b. allow the present petition and issue wr it/ wr its /

direction/order, wr it being in the nature of

 mandamus to the Respondent No. 1 and 2 directing

the implement the Thirty first report of Standing

Committee on Defence (2008-2009) (Fourteenth

LokSabha), Ministry of Defence on Stress Management in

Armed Forces.

c. issue Wr it of mandamus in nature of directing the

Respondent No. 1 to investigate the unnatural

death of the Gunner Roy Mathew in a fair and

impar tial manner keeping in view entirety of

circumstances and mater ials under the super vision

of this Honble Cour t; and,

d. Issue a wr it of Mandamus or any other appropr iate

wr it, order or direction to Respondents to ensure

protection to the Petitioners as well as the family

members of Gunner Roy Mathew from any threat,

force or coercion under the direct super vision of

this Honble Cour t; and

e. For such other and fur ther reliefs as this Honble

Cour t may deem fi t to grant in the circumstances of

the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS

IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER BE GRATEFUL.