Back
2013 Supreme(SC) 1267
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.
People’s Union For Civil Liberties - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors - Respondent
I.A. No. 110 of 2010, 129 of 2013 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2001
Decided On : 10-07-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Ms.Jyoti Mendiratta, Adv. Ms. A. Shukla, Adv. Mr. R.C. Kaushik, Adv Mr. D.M. Nargolkar, Mr. K.L. Janjani, M/s. Hingorani & Associates Dr. Kailash Chand.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Mr. P.P. Malhotra, ASG Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv. Mr. D.D. Kamat, Adv. Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv. Mr. N. Pasha, Adv. Mr. Anil Gaur, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Sharma, adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. N. Pasa, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mehra, Adv. Mr. S.Wasim A.Qadri, Adv. Mr. G. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Chetan Chawla, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Dixit, Adv. Mr. G. Dua, Adv. Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. Mr. D.K. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bansal, AAG Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv. Mr. Pardaman Singh, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh, Adv. Mr. Tarjit Singh, Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Adv. Ms. Insha Mir, Adv. Mr. Raghav Chadha, Adv. Ms. Pooja, Adv. Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kr. Ganguli, Adv. Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Soumi Kundu, Adv. Ms. A.Subhashini, Adv Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Adv Mr. Anil K. Jha, Adv Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv Ms. Indra Sawhney, Adv Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv M/S Saharya & Co., Adv Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Adv Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv Mr. Pradeep Misra, Adv Mrs Rani Chhabra, Adv Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Adv Mr. K.V.Mohan, Adv Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Adv Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv Mrs.D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Adv Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Adv Mr.Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Adv Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv Mr. Gopal Prasad, Adv Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv Mr. Suresh Chandra Tripathy, Adv Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv M/S Corporate Law Group, Adv Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Adv Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Adv Mr. S. Thananjayan, Adv Mr. Shibashish Misra, Adv Mr. Vikas Mehta, Adv Mr.T.V.George, Adv Ms.Anjana Chandrashekar, Adv Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, Adv Mr. B.Balaji, Adv Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Adv, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy.
Headnote:
Condo nation of delay – Acquitted - Insofar as children up to class VIII or within the age group of six to fourteen years are concerned a mid-Day meal free of charge every day except on school holidays in all schools run by local bodies government and Government aided schools has been recognized as an entitlement of every child to meet their nutritional requirements - What is significant is that Section school and every anganwadi is required to have facilities for cooking meals drinking water and sanitation – Held, Expression meal has been defined in Section said Ordinance to mean hot cooked meal or ready to eat meal or take home ration as may be prescribed by Central Government - Insofar as children up to class or within age group of six to fourteen years are concerned mid day meal free of charge every day except on school holidays in all schools run by local bodies government and Government aided schools has been recognized as an entitlement of every child to meet their nutritional requirements - This position has been disputed Kumar who submitted that each and every school and every anganwadi is not equipped with a kitchen and that while some schools are equipped with kitchen for providing breakfasts and mid day meals in age groups three to six years such kitchens and arrangements were not available for use for children in age group of six months to three years - In circumstances therefore and keeping in view submissions made at Bar court direct State Government Gujarat to file an additional affidavit on lines indicated above indicating time frame within which it will switch-over to system of supply food to targeted population of children and others entitled to same in State of Gujarat Ordinance and also indicating time frame within which every school and anganwadi may be equipped with facilities for cooking meals within meaning of Section Ordinance - Colin Gonzales may also file an affidavit in reply and indicate whether anganwadi and schools in State of Gujarat are indeed equipped with kitchens cooking arrangements as stated by him – Order accordingly
ORDER :
1. Heard.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General, appears on behalf of respondent no.1 (Union of India). Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel, appears on behalf of the writ petitioners. Copies of the application have already been served upon them. They may file their objections if any within two weeks.
4. Our attention has been drawn to the National Food Security Ordinance, 2013 promulgated by the President w.e.f. 5th July, 2013. A cursory perusal of the Ordinance shows that the same makes several significant provisions for the benefit of children in the age group of six months to fourteen years. The ordinance inter alia makes an attempt to reform the public distribution system in rural and urban areas generally and bring in transparency and accountability apart from creating obligations for the Central Government and the State Governments on issues relating to the food security. Relevant for the present application are the provisions of Section 5 of the said Ordinance under which every child up to the age of fourteen years is entitled to the benefits stipulated therein. As Section 5(1)(a), in particular, enumerates that in the case of children in the age group of six months to six years age an appropriate meal, free of charge, through the local anganwadi shall be provided to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II to the ordinance. The expression "meal" has been defined in Section 2(9) of the said Ordinance to mean "hot cooked meal or ready to eat meal or take home ration, as may be prescribed by the Central Government". Insofar as children up to class VIII or within the age group of six to fourteen years are concerned a mid-day meal, free of charge, every day, except on school holidays, in all schools run by local bodies, government and Government aided schools has been recognised as an entitlement of every child to meet their nutritional requirements. What is significant is that under Section 5(2) every school and every anganwadi is required to have facilities for cooking meals, drinking water and sanitation.
5. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat, submitted on instructions of the Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, that the State of Gujarat has already implemented the ICDS scheme earlier prevalent so far as children in the age group of three to six years are concerned. He further stated on instructions that as regards children falling in the age group of six months to three years also the Government had taken steps to implement the scheme earlier formulated in part and to the extent of 16 per cent of the total population of 32 lakhs or so falling in that age group, including 15 lakhs lactating mothers, pregnant women and adolescents covered under the scheme. According to Mr. Kumar 16 per cent of the total beneficiaries are getting their ration requirements under the scheme through Mahila Mandals and Self-Help Groups concerned. He urged that with the promulgation of the Ordinance and in terms of Section 39 thereof the Central government has the power to frame rules to carry out the provisions of the ordinance and in particular provide schemes covering entitlements under Sections 4, 5 and 6 including cost sharing under Section 7 thereof. He also referred to Section 41 of the Ordinance to submit that the schemes, guidelines, orders and food standard, grievance redressal mechanism, vigilance committees will continue till the rules are framed and schemes notified under the Ordinance. He submitted that while the Government of Gujarat shall have to make suitable alterations wherever necessary in the procedures and the methods adopted under the old scheme to fall in line with the provisions of the Ordinance, any such change of procedures, methods and practices may take time, especially because the Central Government shall have to frame rules and formulate schemes under the Ordinance which part has yet to be done. H
