Supply of Dry Ration Instead of THR & Hot Cooked Meals Under ICDS Scheme is Impermissible: Allahabad High Court directs strict compliance with National Food Security Act, 2013 & Rules of 2022 - 2025-08-01

Allahabad High Court Mandates Strict Adherence to Nutrition Rules, Says Dry Ration No Substitute for Hot Meals Under ICDS Scheme

LUCKNOW, U.P. – In a significant judgment addressing widespread malnutrition, the Allahabad High Court has issued stringent directives to the Uttar Pradesh government to ensure the proper implementation of the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme. A Division Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi ruled that the supply of 'dry ration' instead of 'Take Home Ration (THR)' and 'Hot Cooked Meals' is impermissible under the law.

The court disposed of two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) highlighting severe deficiencies in the scheme, which has resulted in Uttar Pradesh ranking high in malnutrition among pregnant women, lactating mothers, and young children.

Background of the Case

The PILs, filed by Shipra Devi and others, brought to the court's attention the flawed execution of the Supplementary Nutrition Programme in Uttar Pradesh. The core issue revolved around the State's failure to provide nutritious food as mandated by the National Food Security Act, 2013, and the Supplementary Nutrition (under Saksham Anganwadi and Poshan 2.0) Rules, 2022.

The court had previously constituted a three-member committee to report on the ground realities. However, after the State government vehemently questioned the committee's credentials, the court set aside the report and decided the case on its legal merits.

Key Arguments

• Petitioners' Counsel: Argued that the State's mechanism, involving Self-Help Groups (SHGs) under the U.P. State Rural Livelihood Mission (UPSRLM) for only 20% of beneficiaries and procuring dry ration through NAFED for the remaining 80%, was a direct violation of the 2022 Rules. They pointed to the "alarming" fact that hot cooked meals were not being served at all, as per the government's own Poshan Tracker portal.

• State of U.P.'s Counsel: Contended that policy-making is the State's prerogative and not subject to judicial review. They defended the use of SHG-led micro-enterprises and argued that the PIL was a "proxy" petition. The State also alleged that it was not given a sufficient hearing, a claim the court found baseless.

• Union of India's Counsel: Maintained that the State government is bound to follow the rules and regulations framed by the Central Government for the ICDS scheme.

Court's Legal Analysis and Findings

The High Court systematically dismantled the State's arguments, focusing squarely on the statutory framework. The bench clarified that it was not interfering with policy but examining the "deficiencies in implementation of the policy and the resultant deprivation of its benefits to the eligible beneficiaries."

The court delivered a sharp critique of the State's current practices, highlighting several key legal points:

On Take Home Ration vs. Dry Ration: The court emphasized that the 2022 Rules explicitly prohibit raw ration. It held, "Rule 3(e) of the Rules of 2022 specifically provides that raw ration as Take Home Ration is not permissible and Take Home Ration as mentioned under the Act shall not be misconstrued as Raw Ration... the fact remains that even fortified ration is raw ration and it is not THR as defined under the Rules."

On Hot Cooked Meals: Citing Schedule II of the National Food Security Act, which mandates morning snacks and hot cooked meals for children aged 3-6 years, the court noted the government's own data showing 0.00% delivery. The bench called this a "total failure" that "cannot be appreciated."

On the Role of Self-Help Groups: The court observed that while empowering women through SHGs is a "welcome approach," it cannot be a justification for violating statutory mandates. It noted that the provision for SHGs in previous rules (2015 and 2017) is "conspicuously absent" in the current 2022 Rules, which instead mandate procurement as per General Financial Rules (GFR), 2017.

On Procedural Objections: The court dismissed the State's claims of the PIL being a "proxy" litigation, stating, "this Court is looking at is the interest of the aforesaid section of the society only and not the interest of the petitioner and in these circumstances, the credentials of the petitioners lose significance."

Final Directions and Implications

Concluding that the noble objectives of the 50-year-old ICDS scheme were yet to be achieved, the High Court issued a series of binding directions to the State government:

• Ensure Complete Compliance: Strictly adhere to the National Food Security Act, 2013, and its schedules in a time-bound manner.
• Stop Dry Ration Supply: The supply of dry ration in place of THR and hot cooked meals must be stopped as it is not permissible under law.
• Follow Procurement Rules: All procurement must strictly follow the General Financial Rules, 2017, and other vigilance guidelines.
• Genuinely Empower SHGs: If the State wishes to involve SHGs, it must do so in a way that is compliant with all statutory rules and ensures real empowerment with Gram Panchayat participation.
• Maintain Accurate Data: The State must ensure the Poshan Tracker portal reflects correct and updated information, eliminating discrepancies with manual registers.

The court expressed an "earnest hope and desire" that the authorities would take all necessary steps to ensure that the children of the state "do not suffer any more for want of proper nutrition." This landmark judgment reinforces the non-negotiable right to food and nutritional security for the most vulnerable and holds the state accountable for its statutory duties.