Supreme Court Directs Reopening of Anganwadi Centers for Child and Maternal Nutrition: Dipika Jagatram Sahani vs. Union of India (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 13 January 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 13

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can the closure of Anganwadi centers during the COVID-19 pandemic deprive vulnerable women and children of essential nutritional services? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a Public Interest Litigation, emphasizing the state’s constitutional and statutory obligations to provide nutrition to pregnant women, lactating mothers, and children. This judgment underscores the importance of Anganwadi centers as a vital component of India’s social safety net.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah, delivered a unanimous judgment, directing the reopening of Anganwadi centers while ensuring adherence to health and safety protocols.

Case Background

The petitioner, Dipika Jagatram Sahani, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the closure of Anganwadi centers across the country. Anganwadi centers, established under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme, provide supplementary nutrition and other essential services to pregnant women, lactating mothers, adolescent girls, and children up to the age of 6 years.

In March 2020, following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, Anganwadi centers were closed nationwide. Although the distribution of Take Home Rations (THR) was permitted, the petitioner argued that the closure deprived beneficiaries of crucial services, including hot cooked meals, growth monitoring, and pre-school education.

The petitioner sought the immediate reopening of Anganwadi centers, along with the provision of hot cooked meals and take-home rations as per the National Food Security Act, 2013, and the Supplementary Nutrition (under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme) Rules, 2020. Additionally, the petitioner requested the court to direct the government to conduct growth monitoring of children and initiate corrective measures to address malnutrition and anemia.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following key legal provisions:

• Article 47 of the Constitution of India: This Directive Principle of State Policy mandates the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people, and improve public health.
• National Food Security Act, 2013: This Act provides for food and nutritional security, ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices. Key sections include:
  • Section 4: Entitles every pregnant woman and lactating mother to free meals during pregnancy and six months after childbirth, through the local Anganwadi. It also provides for maternity benefits. “Subject to such schemes as may be framed by the Central Government, every pregnant woman and lactating mother shall be entitled to — (a) meal, free of charge, during pregnancy and six months after the child birth, through the local anganwadi, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II; and (b) maternity benefit of not less than rupees six thousand, in such instalments as may be prescribed by the Central Government…”
  • Section 5: Provides for nutritional support to children, ensuring age-appropriate meals free of charge through local Anganwadis for children aged six months to six years. “(1) Subject to the provisions contained in clause (b), every child up to the age of fourteen years shall have the following entitlements for his nutritional needs, namely: — (a) in the case of children in the age group of six months to six years, age appropriate meal, free of charge, through the local anganwadi so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II…”
  • Section 6: Requires the State Government to identify and provide meals, free of charge, to children suffering from malnutrition through local Anganwadis. “The State Government shall, through the local anganwadi, identify and provide meals, free of charge, to children who suffer from malnutrition, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II.”
  • Section 2(1): Defines “anganwadi” as a child care and development center set up under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme. ““anganwadi” means a child care and development centre set up under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme of the Central Government to render services covered under section 4, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 5 and 6.”
  • Section 7: Obligates State Governments to implement schemes covering entitlements under Sections 4, 5 and 6.
  • Schedule II: Specifies the nutritional standards for children and pregnant/lactating mothers.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments (Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel):

• The closure of Anganwadi centers has severely impacted vulnerable populations, including children, pregnant women, and lactating mothers.
• The pandemic has strained employment and livelihoods, making the benefits provided by Anganwadi centers even more critical.
• The non-provision of hot cooked meals to children up to six years of age and those suffering from malnutrition requires immediate attention and remedial action.
• The National Human Rights Commission has also recommended the immediate reopening of Anganwadi centers after impact assessment.

Respondent’s Arguments (Smt. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General for Union of India):

• The Union of India has issued a Guidance Note on 11.11.2020, permitting the resumption of Anganwadi services outside containment zones, subject to health and safety protocols.
• The Union of India has also issued an operational guidance note for the continuation of services in the context of COVID-19.
• The Union of India has sought status reports from States and Union Territories regarding the implementation of the guidelines.
• Some States and Union Territories have already opened Anganwadi centers and are providing services.

Arguments of Various States and Union Territories:

• Many States and Union Territories have been providing Take Home Rations (THR) to beneficiaries at their doorsteps.
• Some States have reopened Anganwadi centers.
• Some States are awaiting government approval to reopen centers.
• Some States have decided not to open centers due to the ongoing pandemic.
• Some States have closed centers until a specific date.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the Anganwadi Centres should be reopened throughout the country.
2. Whether the nutritional standards as provided in Schedule II of National Food Security Act, 2013, is fulfilled by providing nutritional support to pregnant women, lactating mothers, nutritional support to children who suffer from malnutrition.
3. Whether the States/Union Territories have issued necessary orders regarding monitoring and supervision of Anganwadi Centres to ensure that the benefit reaches to the beneficiaries and a Complaint Redressal Mechanism is in place in each district.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Article 47 of the Constitution of India: The Court emphasized the constitutional obligation of the State to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living.
• National Food Security Act, 2013: The Court relied on the statutory obligations under the Act to provide nutritional support to vulnerable populations.
• People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India and others: The Court referred to this case to highlight the importance of protecting the right to food of vulnerable populations.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to protect the health and well-being of vulnerable populations, particularly children and women. The Court emphasized the constitutional and statutory obligations of the State to provide adequate nutrition and ensure the effective implementation of welfare schemes.

The Court’s reasoning was influenced by the following factors:

• Constitutional Mandate: The Court highlighted Article 47 of the Constitution, which mandates the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people.
• Statutory Obligations: The Court emphasized the statutory obligations under the National Food Security Act, 2013, to provide nutritional support to pregnant women, lactating mothers, and children.
• Essential Services: The Court recognized Anganwadi centers as essential service providers, particularly for vulnerable populations.
• Impact of Closure: The Court acknowledged the negative impact of the closure of Anganwadi centers on the health and well-being of beneficiaries.
• Guidance Note: The Court considered the guidance note issued by the Union of India, which permitted the resumption of Anganwadi services outside containment zones.
• State’s Primary Duty: The Court reiterated that it is the primary duty of the State to secure the health of its citizens.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments presented by both the petitioner and the respondents, and also took into account the guidance note issued by the Union of India. The Court rejected the arguments of the States that were hesitant to reopen the Anganwadi centers, emphasizing the need to fulfill their statutory obligations.

The Court’s final decision was based on the following reasons:

• The State has a constitutional obligation to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, particularly vulnerable populations.
• The National Food Security Act, 2013, imposes a statutory obligation on the State to provide nutritional support to pregnant women, lactating mothers, and children.
• Anganwadi centers play a crucial role in providing essential services, including supplementary nutrition, growth monitoring, and pre-school education.
• The closure of Anganwadi centers has had a negative impact on the health and well-being of beneficiaries.
• The guidance note issued by the Union of India permits the resumption of Anganwadi services outside containment zones, subject to health and safety protocols.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Children are the next generation and therefore unless and until the children and the women have the nutritious food, it will affect the next generation and ultimately the country as a whole.”

“Government has a constitutional obligation to preserve human life. Good health of its citizens is its primary duty.”

“The beneficiaries which belong to vulnerable class are not equipped with suitable mechanisms to raise issues of non -implementation and not providing food articles complying with nutritional standards as provided in the Statute.”

Key Takeaways

• All States and Union Territories must ensure the reopening of Anganwadi centers outside containment zones by 31.01.2021, unless there are specific directions to the contrary by the State Disaster Management Authority.
• The State has a constitutional and statutory obligation to provide nutritional support to pregnant women, lactating mothers, and children as per the standards laid down in Schedule II of the National Food Security Act, 2013.
• States/UTs must establish a robust monitoring and supervision mechanism to ensure that benefits reach the intended beneficiaries.
• A Complaint Redressal Mechanism should be in place in each district to address grievances related to the implementation of the schemes.

Potential Future Impact:

• This judgment reinforces the State’s responsibility to ensure the nutritional well-being of vulnerable populations.
• It provides a legal basis for demanding the effective implementation of welfare schemes related to nutrition.
• It may lead to greater accountability and transparency in the functioning of Anganwadi centers.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. All States/Union Territories that have not yet opened Anganwadi centers shall take a decision to open them by 31.01.2021, if situated outside containment zones.
2. A decision not to open Anganwadi centers can be taken only after the State Disaster Management Authority directs so.
3. Anganwadi centers in containment zones shall not be opened until the containment continues.
4. All States/Union Territories shall ensure that nutritional standards as provided in Schedule II of the National Food Security Act, 2013, are fulfilled.
5. All States/Union Territories shall issue necessary orders regarding monitoring and supervision of Anganwadi centers and ensure that a Complaint Redressal Mechanism is in place in each district.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State has a constitutional and statutory obligation to provide nutritional support to vulnerable populations, and Anganwadi centers are essential for fulfilling this obligation. This judgment reinforces the importance of Anganwadi centers as a critical component of India’s social safety net, especially during times of crisis.

This judgment does not change any previous position of law but rather reinforces and clarifies the existing legal framework related to the provision of nutritional support to vulnerable populations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dipika Jagatram Sahani vs. Union of India is a significant step towards ensuring the nutritional well-being of vulnerable populations in India. By directing the reopening of Anganwadi centers and emphasizing the State’s constitutional and statutory obligations, the Court has reaffirmed the importance of these centers in providing essential services to pregnant women, lactating mothers, and children. This judgment underscores the need for effective implementation of welfare schemes and accountability on the part of the State in fulfilling its duties towards its citizens.