Back
2021 Supreme(SC) 1243
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI, SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Anun Dhawan and Others – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1103 of 2019
Decided On : 27-10-2021
For the Appellants : Ashima Mandla, Mandakini Singh, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Ibad Mushtaq, Syed Mohd. Ahmad
For the Respondents: Raj Bahadur Yadav, Madhvi Divan, Gurmeet Singh Makker, R. Bala, Chinmayee Chandra, Gaurav Agrawal, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Aditya Pratap Singh, L. Bhaswati Singh, Aditya Narayan Das, Arun R. Pednekar, Mukti Chowdhary, Debojit Borkakati, Vivek Sonker, Ranjan Mukherjee, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Anupama Ngangom, Karun Sharma, Sumeer Sodhi, Dhruv Wadhwa, Abhimanyu Tewari, Eliza Bar, Shibashish Misra, Ashish Kumar, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Pranav Sachdeva, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Sweena Nair, P. Mohith Rao, V.N. Raghupathy, M. Shoeb Alam, Avijit Mani Tripathi, T.K. Nayar, Shaurya Sahay, Santosh Kumar, Raghvendra Kumar, Anand Dubey, Narendra Kumar, Rajiv Kumar Sinha, Manish Kumar, Abhinav Singh, Anil Grover, Noopur Singhal, Rahul Khurana, Satish Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Bhanwar Jadon, Babita Mishra, Uttara Babbar, Astha Sharma, Garima Prashad, Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee, Parth Yadav, Akshay Chowdhary, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, G. Prakash, Priyanka Prakash, Beena Prakash, Suhaan Mukerji, Vishal Prasad, Nikhil Parikshith, Abhishek Manchanda, Mukul Singh, Sandeep Sharma, Sunny Choudhary, Abhinav Mukerji, Pratishtha Vij, Bihu Sharma, Akshay C. Shrivastava, K.V. Jagdishvaran, G. Indira, N.P. Haibila, G.N. Reddy, Aravindh S., C. Rubavathi, Chandra Prakash, Vivek Singh, C.P. Rajwar, K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Chubalemla Chang, M. Yogesh Kanna, B.V. Balaram Das, Shuvodeep Roy, Kabir Shankar Bose, Ishaan Borthakur, Rajiv Nanda, Satish Pandey, Deepanwita Priyanka, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Siddhesh Kotwal, Pragya, Joseph Aristotle S., Preeti Singh, Ripul Swati Kumari, Mahfooz A. Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Amitabh Sinha, K.V. Girish Chowdary
The implementation of community kitchens requires collaboration between the Union and State Governments to effectively address hunger deaths and malnutrition among children.
Headnote:(A) Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India - Community Kitchen Scheme implementation - Addressing hunger deaths and malnutrition among children necessitates governmental involvement and policy formulation - The Union of India is urged to coordinate with States and stakeholders to ensure effective scheme implementation. (Paras 3, 5, 6)
(B) State responsibility - Directives to States for counter affidavits regarding implementation challenges and identification of affected districts. (Paras 2, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners raised concerns regarding hunger deaths and malnutrition among children, urging the implementation of a community kitchen scheme. The court acknowledged ongoing governmental considerations on this issue. (Paras 3, 8)
Findings of Court:
The court mandated the Union of India to formulate a policy decision concerning the community kitchen scheme and engage with State Governments for effective implementation. (Paras 5, 7)
Issues: The central issue pertains to the implementation of a community kitchen scheme to address hunger and malnutrition, alongside the involvement of State Governments. (Paras 4, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that successful implementation of such social schemes requires collaboration with State administrations and consideration of existing similar initiatives. (Paras 5, 6)
Result: The matter was listed for further proceedings on 16.11.2021.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. participation of stakeholders in policy-making. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. need for state involvement in community schemes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. factual context of hunger deaths in specific states. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. grant of time and costs related decisions. (Para 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion on further proceedings. (Para 11 , 13 , 15) |
ORDER :
1. Heard Ms. Ashima Mandla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms. Madhvi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India and other learned counsels appearing for the States and Union Territories at a considerable length.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Union Territory of Ladakh are directed to file their respective counter affidavits within a period of two weeks from today, without fail.
3. It is submitted by learned Additional Solicitor General that the issues which are raised in this Writ Petition with regard to creating community kitchens to take care of hunger deaths or malnutrition of children are under active consideration of the Union of India and they are awaiting expert reports on the subject.
4. We are of the considered view that until and unless the State Governments are involved with regard to implementation of the Scheme, it would be difficult to implement the same.
5. Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate that the Union of India should come out with some policy decision with regard to implementation of the Community Kitchen Scheme by taking into consideration the other similar Schemes relating to the community kitchen which are already in operation in different States.
6. We feel that there is a need to coordinate with the State Governments/Union Territories and their opinion should also be taken into consideration by the Union of India before finalization of the Community Kitchen Scheme.
7. In view of the above, we direct the Union of India to interact with the concerned stakeholders as well as for finalization of probable date of holding meetings with the State Governments/Union Territories on the subject.
8. During the course of hearing, we are informed that in five States viz. States of U.P., M.P., Maharashtra, Odisha and Bihar, the incidents of hunger deaths and malnutrition of children are reported.
9. In view of the above, learned counsel appearing for the States of U.P., M.P., Maharashtra, Odisha and Bihar are directed to file their respective short replies about the aforesaid issues and identify the Districts/Talukas/Villages where these deaths/ malnutrition have/are taking place, on the next date of hearing without fail.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Manipur prays for and is granted two weeks’ time to deposit the costs.
11. It is made clear that no further extension of time would be granted for the said purpose.
12. Learned counsel appearing for all those States which have not so far filed costs pursuant to Order of this Court are granted four weeks’ time from today for the said purpose.
13. The Registry is directed to invest the costs deposited by the States in an interest-earning Fixed Deposit Receipts on short-term basis in any Nationalized Bank with auto-renewal facility which gives more interest.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Sikkim seeks exemption from paying remaining costs, which is rejected.
15. List the matter on 16.11.2021.
