Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 156
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Anun Dhawan and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1103 of 2019
Decided On : 22-02-2024
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Ashima Mandla, Adv. Ms. Mandakini Singh, Adv. Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rai, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. R Bala, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma B, Adv. Mrs. Sonali Jain, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR Mr. M.f. Philip, Adv. Mr. Karamveer Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry , AOR Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Adv. Mr. Ishwar Singh, Adv. Mr. Suyash Vayas, Adv. Mr. Sahil Bhatiya, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Krishan Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Ms. Garima Prasad, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Mohan, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar - I, AOR Ms. Ankita Choudhary, A.A.G. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Abbas, Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Ms. Jay Jaimini Pandey, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manmohan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Ms. Lalita Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sadiya Shakeel, Adv. Mr. Abdul Qadir, Adv. Mr. Akbar Ali, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gopal Sharan Pathak, Adv. Mr. Abbul Kalam, Adv. Mr. Kafeel Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Ms. Mukti Chowdhary, AOR Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupam Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Ms. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Ms. Anvita Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Adv. Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. B K Satija, A.A.G. Mr. Parth Sarathi, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Joshi, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Mr. Gurminder Singh, A.G. Punjab, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Abraham Mathew, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Adv. Ms. Madhura Chitnes, Adv. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Devvratsingh, Adv. Mr. V.K. Mudgil, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.K. Rajora, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Adv. Ms. Inderdeep Kaur Raina, Adv. Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi, Adv.
Headnote:
Community Kitchens - Right to Food - National Food Security Act, 2013 - Article 21, Article 47 - NFSA
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, claiming to be social activists, filed a petition seeking directions to implement Community Kitchens to combat hunger, malnutrition, and starvation. The Court had directed the Union of India and the States to consider the Community Kitchens Scheme. The States/Union Territories detailed the schemes adopted and enforced in their respective states to combat hunger and malnutrition. The petitioners argued that the duty of the Centre and States goes beyond preventing deaths due to hunger, malnutrition, or starvation. The Union of India and the States submitted that they have successfully implemented schemes to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens.
Finding of the Court:
The Court noted that while the Constitution of India does not explicitly provide for the Right to food, the fundamental Right to life includes the Right to live with human dignity and right to food and other basic necessities. The Court highlighted the enactment of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA) and its life cycle approach to provide food and nutritional security. The Court found that there is a systematic legal framework provided under the NFSA for the implementation of various schemes and programs, and therefore, declined to direct the States/UTs to implement the concept of Community Kitchens as prayed for by the petitioners.
Issues: The issues revolved around the constitutional duty of the Centre and States to combat hunger, malnutrition, and starvation, and the necessity of implementing the concept of Community Kitchens to ensure the basic sustainability of human life.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the fundamental Right to life and the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people. It highlighted the enactment of the NFSA and its 'right based approach' for providing food and nutritional security, and the implementation of various welfare schemes under the said Act by the Union of India and the States. The Court also reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in examining policy matters and declined to direct the States to implement a particular policy or scheme.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of, and the Court declined to direct the States/UTs to implement the concept of Community Kitchens, leaving it open to the States/UTs to explore alternative welfare schemes permissible under the NFSA.
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The petitioners claiming to be the social activists have filed the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking various directions against the States and Union Territories to formulate a scheme to implement the concept of Community Kitchens to combat hunger, malnutrition and starvation and the deaths resulting thereof. The petitioners have also sought direction against the National Legal Services Authority to formulate a scheme in order to further the provisions of Article 50(1)A of the Constitution, as also against the Central Government to create a National Food Grid beyond the scope of the Public Distribution Scheme.
2. This Court vide the order dated 27.10.2021 had directed the Union of India to interact with the concerned stakeholders for consideration of the Community Kitchens Scheme or any other similar schemes relating to Community Kitchens which are already in operation in different states. Subsequently also various orders were passed by the Court directing the States to attend the meetings managed by the Union of India for exploring the possibility of framing up of the Community Kitchens Scheme.
3. The States/Union Territories have filed their counter affidavits/ responses stating in detail about the schemes adopted and enforced in their respective states like Poshan Abhiyan, Take Home Ration, Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana, Mid-Day Meal, Open Market Sales Scheme, One Nation One Ration Card Scheme, Annapurna Scheme, Antyodaya Anna Yojana etc. also stating that some of the schemes are monitored by the Integrated Child Development Services and Integrated Tribal Development Program. The States in their respective affidavits had also stated that there were no deaths reported due to starvation or malnutrition. The Union of India has also submitted that the Government is committed to focus on combating hunger and malnutrition by implementing various schemes through the State Governments to enhance the food security. As per the submission, the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana was launched to address economic disruptions and is extended to free grain provision to Antyodaya Anna Yojana and Priority Households to alleviate poverty burdens; Atma Nirbhar Bharat Package allocated additional food grain for migrants during the Covid-19 crisis; Pradhan Mantri Poshan Shakti Nirman Scheme aims to improve nutrition among school students and accordingly allocates food grains; Scheme for Adolescent Girls focuses to improve the health and nutrition of adolescent girls aged 11 to 18 years; Annapurna Scheme provides indigent senior citizens with free food grains. The Advisories are being issued from time to time to include millets and to widen nutritional standards to enhance nutrition levels amongst the beneficiaries.
4. The learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that undoubtedly the Union of India and the States have taken the steps to combat hunger, malnutrition and starvation by implementing various Central and State Government Schemes, however according to them even if the hunger, malnutrition or starvation may not necessarily result in death, the Centre and States have the constitutional duty to ensure basic sustainability of human life. The learned ASG Mr. R. Bala submitted that this being not an adversarial litigation, the details of schemes, programmes, policies and other measures taken by the Central Government and the State Governments have been submitted to satisfy the conscience of the court that they have successfully implemented the schemes for protecting the fundamental rights of the citizens. He also submitted that there is no further need for continued monitoring by this Court.
5. It is significant to note that though the Constitution of India does not explicitly provide for Right to food, the fundamental Right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution does include Right to live with human dignity and right to food and other basic neces
