Supreme Court declines to mandate Community Kitchens, upholds existing food security schemes: Anun Dhawan vs. Union of India (2024)

Date of the Judgment: February 22, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 136
Judges: Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal
Can the government be compelled to implement a specific scheme, like community kitchens, to combat hunger when existing programs are already in place? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, declining to mandate community kitchens and instead affirming the existing framework of food security programs. This judgment clarifies the judiciary’s role in policy matters and emphasizes the government’s existing efforts to address hunger and malnutrition. The bench consisted of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal, who delivered a unanimous decision.

Case Background

The case originated from a writ petition filed by social activists seeking the implementation of community kitchens across India to combat hunger, malnutrition, and starvation. The petitioners also sought directions for the National Legal Services Authority to formulate a scheme under Article 50(1)A of the Constitution and for the Central Government to create a National Food Grid beyond the Public Distribution Scheme. The petitioners argued that despite existing government schemes, the state has a constitutional duty to ensure basic sustainability of human life.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court initially directed the Union of India to consult with stakeholders regarding the implementation of a Community Kitchens Scheme. Subsequently, the Court ordered states to attend meetings convened by the Union of India to explore the feasibility of such a scheme. The States and Union Territories responded by filing counter-affidavits detailing their existing food security programs. These programs include 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, and Antyodaya Anna Yojana. The Union of India also submitted details of various schemes aimed at combating hunger and malnutrition.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the right to life, which the Court interprets to include the right to live with human dignity and the right to food and other basic necessities.
• Article 47 of the Constitution of India: This article directs the State to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living of its people and improve public health as among its primary duties.
• National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA): The Court noted that the NFSA aims to provide food and nutritional security by ensuring access to adequate quantities of quality food at affordable prices. The Act provides a framework for various schemes, including the Targeted Public Distribution System, Mid-day Meal Scheme, Integrated Child Development Services, and Maternity Cash Entitlements.
• Cash Transfer of Food Subsidy Rules 2015: These rules enable State Governments to provide food subsidy in cash directly to the bank accounts of entitled households.

The Court emphasized that the NFSA represents a shift from a welfare-based approach to a rights-based approach to food security.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners, as social activists, argued that despite the various schemes implemented by the Union and State Governments, the constitutional duty of the Centre and States to ensure basic sustainability of human life remains unfulfilled.
• They contended that hunger, malnutrition, and starvation, even if not resulting in death, necessitate the implementation of community kitchens.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The Union of India, represented by the learned ASG Mr. R. Bala, submitted that the details of schemes, programs, policies, and other measures taken by the Central and State Governments were provided to demonstrate the successful implementation of schemes for protecting the fundamental rights of citizens.
• The respondents argued that there is no further need for continued monitoring by the Court.
• The government highlighted various schemes such as the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana, Atma Nirbhar Bharat Package, Pradhan Mantri Poshan Shakti Nirman Scheme, Scheme for Adolescent Girls, and Annapurna Scheme, all aimed at improving food security and nutrition.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues for determination. However, the core issue before the court was whether to direct the States/UTs to implement the concept of Community Kitchens, as prayed for by the petitioners.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Directorate of Film Festivals and Others vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and Others, (2007) 4 SCC 737*: The Supreme Court cited this case to support its position that the judiciary should not interfere with policy decisions made by the executive unless they are illegal. The court reiterated that it cannot direct the implementation of a particular policy simply because a better alternative may exist.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the existing legal framework and the government’s ongoing efforts to combat hunger and malnutrition. The Court emphasized the following points:

• The National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA) provides a comprehensive framework for food security with a rights-based approach.
• Various schemes and programs are already being implemented by the Union and State Governments under the NFSA.
• The judiciary’s role in policy matters is limited, and the Court cannot dictate specific policies or schemes.
• The Court acknowledged the government’s commitment to addressing hunger and malnutrition.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle of judicial restraint in policy matters. The Court stated,

“The Courts do not and cannot examine the correctness, suitability or appropriateness of a policy, nor are the courts advisors to the executive on the matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate.”

The Court also noted that it could not direct the implementation of a specific scheme simply because a better alternative might exist. Instead, the Court emphasized the importance of the existing legal framework and the government’s ongoing efforts. The Court also stated,

“Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, would be the subject of judicial review.”

The Court further stated,

“when the NFSA with a ‘right based approach’ for providing food and nutritional security, is in force and when other welfare schemes under the said Act have also been framed and implemented by the Union of India and the States , to ensure access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity, we do not propose to give any further direction in that regard.”

The Court did not find any need to direct the implementation of community kitchens, given the existing legal framework and ongoing government efforts. There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court will not interfere with policy decisions of the government unless they are illegal.
• The National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA) provides a comprehensive framework for food security.
• The government is committed to addressing hunger and malnutrition through various schemes.
• The judiciary’s role in policy matters is limited, and the Court cannot dictate specific policies or schemes.
• The states are free to explore alternative welfare schemes under the NFSA.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the judiciary will not interfere with the government’s policy decisions on food security when a comprehensive legal framework like the NFSA is in place and the government is actively implementing various schemes. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle of judicial restraint in policy matters, emphasizing that the courts cannot mandate specific policies or schemes simply because a better alternative may exist.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition seeking the implementation of community kitchens, holding that the existing legal framework under the National Food Security Act, 2013, and the various schemes implemented by the Union and State Governments are sufficient to address the issue of food security. The Court emphasized its limited role in policy matters and declined to interfere with the government’s ongoing efforts to combat hunger and malnutrition. The Court, however, left it open for the States/UTs to explore alternative welfare schemes under the NFSA.

Category

Parent Category: Constitutional Law
Child Categories: Right to Life, Article 21, Article 47, Food Security, National Food Security Act, 2013, Judicial Review, Policy Matters

Parent Category: National Food Security Act, 2013
Child Categories: Section 39, National Food Security Act, 2013, Section 12, National Food Security Act, 2013

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Anun Dhawan vs. Union of India case?
A: The main issue was whether the Supreme Court should direct the government to implement community kitchens to combat hunger and malnutrition, despite existing food security programs.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court declined to mandate community kitchens, stating that the existing legal framework under the National Food Security Act, 2013, and the various schemes implemented by the government are sufficient.

Q: What is the National Food Security Act, 2013?
A: The National Food Security Act, 2013, is a law that aims to provide food and nutritional security by ensuring access to adequate quantities of quality food at affordable prices. It provides a framework for various schemes, including the Targeted Public Distribution System, Mid-day Meal Scheme, Integrated Child Development Services, and Maternity Cash Entitlements.

Q: Why didn’t the Supreme Court order the implementation of community kitchens?
A: The Court emphasized its limited role in policy matters and stated that it cannot direct the implementation of a particular policy simply because a better alternative may exist. The Court noted that the government is already implementing various schemes to address food security.

Q: What does this judgment mean for the future?
A: This judgment reinforces the principle of judicial restraint in policy matters and indicates that the Supreme Court will not interfere with government policies unless they are illegal. It also highlights the importance of the National Food Security Act and the government’s ongoing efforts to combat hunger and malnutrition.