Supreme Court Directs States to Implement National Food Security Act: Swaraj Abhiyan vs. Union of India (2017) INSC 648 (21 July 2017)

Date of the Judgment: 21 July 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 648
Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J. and N.V. Ramana, J.
Can the Central Government ensure that States implement laws passed by the Parliament? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question while hearing a case about the implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013. The Court expressed its concern over the lackadaisical approach of several State Governments in implementing the Act. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice N.V. Ramana, with both judges concurring on the final directions, but Justice Ramana adding a separate opinion on the larger constitutional questions involved.

Case Background

The case arose from a Writ Petition filed by Swaraj Abhiyan, highlighting the non-implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFS Act) by various State Governments. The NFS Act, enacted by the Parliament, aims to provide food security to the most vulnerable sections of society. The petitioner contended that despite the law being in force for nearly four years, several states had not established the necessary mechanisms for its effective implementation.

The key issues raised included the failure to appoint District Grievance Redressal Officers, the non-constitution of State Food Commissions, the lack of social audits, and the absence of Vigilance Committees as mandated by the NFS Act. The petitioner sought the Court’s intervention to ensure that the benefits of the Act reached the intended beneficiaries.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court had been monitoring the implementation of the NFS Act since 2016. The Court had previously expressed concerns about the slow pace of implementation and had directed the Central Government to convene meetings with State officials. Despite these efforts, many states failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act. The Court noted that some states had merely assigned additional responsibilities to existing officers instead of appointing independent District Grievance Redressal Officers. Similarly, some states had designated the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as the State Food Commission, which the Court found to be inappropriate.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and implementation of the following sections of the National Food Security Act, 2013:

• Section 14: This section mandates that “Every State Government shall put in place an internal grievance redressal mechanism….”
• Section 15: This section states that “The State Government shall appoint or designate, for each district, an officer to be the District Grievance Redressal Officer…..”
• Section 16: This section provides that “Every State Government shall, by notification, constitute a State Food Commission……..”
• Section 28: This section mandates that “Every local authority, or any other authority or body, as may be authorized by the State Government, shall conduct or cause to be conducted periodic social audits……”
• Section 29: This section provides that “For ensuring transparency and proper functioning of the Targeted Public Distribution System and accountability of the functionaries in such system, every State Government shall set up Vigilance Committees……”
• Section 38: This section states that “The Central Government may, from time to time, give such directions, as it may consider necessary, to the State Governments for the effective implementation of the provisions of this Act and the State Governments shall comply with such directions.”
• Article 256 of the Constitution of India: This article states that “The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.”

The Court emphasized that these provisions are mandatory and not merely directory. The Court also highlighted Article 256 of the Constitution, which obligates states to comply with laws made by the Parliament and empowers the Union to issue necessary directions to ensure such compliance.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that the State Governments had failed to implement the mandatory provisions of the NFS Act, particularly regarding the appointment of independent District Grievance Redressal Officers, the constitution of State Food Commissions, the conduct of social audits, and the establishment of Vigilance Committees.
• The petitioner contended that the appointment of District Collectors or Deputy Commissioners as District Grievance Redressal Officers was inappropriate, as these officers are already burdened with other responsibilities and are directly involved in the implementation of the Act, thereby compromising their independence.
• The petitioner also argued that designating the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as the State Food Commission was not in line with the spirit of the NFS Act, as these bodies have different functions and qualifications.
• The petitioner insisted that the social audit mechanism should be implemented as per the draft Report of the Working Group on Developing Social Audit Standards, which has been accepted by the Central Government.
• The petitioner suggested the appointment of Food Commissioners or Ombudsman to oversee the implementation of the NFS Act.

Central Government’s Arguments:

• The Central Government acknowledged the lapses in implementation by some State Governments.
• The Central Government informed the Court that it had prepared Model Rules for the Grievance Redressal Mechanism and had circulated them to the State Governments.
• The Central Government agreed that the Grievance Redressal Mechanism should be independent and transparent.
• The Central Government supported the implementation of the social audit mechanism as per the draft Report of the Working Group on Developing Social Audit Standards.

State Governments’ Arguments:

• Some State Governments claimed to have taken steps to implement the Act, but the Court found these steps to be inadequate.
• Some State Governments argued that they had designated existing commissions or officers to fulfill the requirements of the Act, citing flexibility provided by the Act.
• Some States cited administrative difficulties and resource constraints as reasons for the delay in implementation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but the primary issues that the court dealt with were:

1. Whether the State Governments were implementing the National Food Security Act, 2013 in letter and spirit.
2. Whether the appointment of District Collectors or Deputy Commissioners as District Grievance Redressal Officers is appropriate.
3. Whether the designation of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as the State Food Commission is in accordance with the spirit of the NFS Act.
4. Whether the social audit mechanism should be implemented as per the draft Report of the Working Group on Developing Social Audit Standards.

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

The Supreme Court issued the following directions to ensure the effective implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PDS Matters) v. Union of India and ors. (2013) 2 SCC 688* was used to highlight the importance of implementation of schemes
• The Supreme Court in Swaraj Abhiyan (II) v. Union of India and ors. AIR 2016 SC 2953* was used to emphasize the need and importance of the National Food Security Act.
• The Supreme Court in Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of Haryana AIR 2016 SC 5617* was used to reiterate the principles of co-operative federalism in India.
• Article 256 of the Constitution of India* was relied upon to emphasize the obligation of states to comply with laws made by Parliament and the power of the Union to issue directions for compliance.
• Section 14 of the National Food Security Act, 2013* was relied upon to emphasize the mandatory nature of putting in place an internal grievance redressal mechanism.
• Section 15 of the National Food Security Act, 2013* was relied upon to emphasize the mandatory nature of appointing or designating a District Grievance Redressal Officer.
• Section 16 of the National Food Security Act, 2013* was relied upon to emphasize the mandatory nature of constituting a State Food Commission.
• Section 28 of the National Food Security Act, 2013* was relied upon to emphasize the mandatory nature of conducting periodic social audits.
• Section 29 of the National Food Security Act, 2013* was relied upon to emphasize the mandatory nature of setting up Vigilance Committees.
• Section 38 of the National Food Security Act, 2013* was relied upon to emphasize the power of the Central Government to issue directions to the State Governments for the effective implementation of the Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was deeply concerned about the lack of seriousness shown by several State Governments in implementing the National Food Security Act, 2013. The Court emphasized that the Act is a social welfare legislation enacted by the Parliament for the benefit of the people, particularly the most vulnerable sections of society. The Court noted that despite the passage of four years since the enactment of the Act, many states had failed to establish the necessary mechanisms for its effective implementation. The Court highlighted that the Act’s provisions are mandatory and not merely directory and that the State Governments are obligated to comply with the law. The Court was also concerned about the lack of independence and transparency in the grievance redressal mechanism and the constitution of the State Food Commissions.

The Court was influenced by the following factors:

• The mandatory nature of the provisions of the NFS Act.
• The social welfare objective of the NFS Act.
• The need for an independent and transparent grievance redressal mechanism.
• The importance of a properly constituted State Food Commission.
• The necessity of conducting social audits.
• The obligation of States to comply with laws made by Parliament as per Article 256 of the Constitution.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the legal obligations under the NFS Act and the constitutional duty of the states to implement parliamentary laws. While the factual aspects of non-implementation were considered, the legal framework and the need to uphold the rule of law were the primary drivers of the Court’s decision.

The court did not consider any alternative interpretations that would have allowed the states to continue with their current practices. The court’s decision was based on a strict interpretation of the law and the constitutional obligations of the states.

The court’s decision was reached by considering the mandatory nature of the provisions of the NFS Act, the social welfare objective of the Act, the need for independent and transparent mechanisms, and the constitutional obligation of the states to comply with laws made by Parliament. The court rejected the states’ arguments for flexibility and emphasized the need for strict compliance with the law.

The court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring on the final directions. Justice Ramana added a separate opinion on the larger constitutional questions involved, but did not dissent from the main judgment.

The court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving the implementation of social welfare legislation. It reinforces the principle that laws passed by Parliament must be implemented in letter and spirit by the State Governments. It also highlights the importance of independent and transparent mechanisms for grievance redressal and the need for properly constituted bodies to oversee the implementation of such laws.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but rather reaffirmed the existing principles of cooperative federalism and the mandatory nature of parliamentary laws. The Court’s decision was based on a strict interpretation of the law and the constitutional obligations of the states.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The NFS Act is a social welfare legislation enacted by the Parliament for the benefit of the people.
• The provisions of the NFS Act are mandatory and not merely directory.
• The State Governments are obligated to comply with the laws made by the Parliament as per Article 256 of the Constitution.
• The grievance redressal mechanism should be independent and transparent.
• The State Food Commission should be properly constituted with the necessary expertise and qualifications.
• Social audits should be conducted periodically to ensure the effective implementation of the Act.
• The Central Government has the power to issue directions to the State Governments for the effective implementation of the Act.

“Mere schemes without any implementation are of no use.”

“The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament…”

“The Central Government may, from time to time, give such directions, as it may consider necessary, to the State Governments for the effective implementation of the provisions of this Act and the State Governments shall comply with such directions.”

Key Takeaways

• State Governments must implement laws passed by the Parliament in letter and spirit.
• The Central Government has the power to issue directions to State Governments to ensure compliance with parliamentary laws.
• District Grievance Redressal Officers should be independent of those responsible for the implementation of the NFS Act.
• State Food Commissions should be constituted as separate bodies with the necessary expertise and qualifications.
• Social audits should be conducted periodically to ensure the effective implementation of the NFS Act.
• The judgment reinforces the principle of cooperative federalism, where the Center and States must work together to achieve common goals.

The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on the implementation of social welfare legislation in India. It will also serve as a reminder to State Governments that they are obligated to comply with laws made by the Parliament and that the Central Government has the power to ensure such compliance. The judgment may also lead to greater accountability and transparency in the implementation of social welfare schemes.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The Secretary in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution of the Government of India should convene meetings with the Secretaries of all State Governments and Union Territories to review the implementation of the NFS Act.
2. The Secretary should request and commend the State Governments and Union Territories to notify rules for a Grievance Redressal Mechanism and designate independent District Grievance Redressal Officers within a fixed time frame.
3. The Secretary should request and commend the State Governments and Union Territories to constitute and make fully functional a State Food Commission under the provisions of the NFS Act.
4. The Secretary should request and commend the State Governments and Union Territories to constitute and establish a functioning Vigilance Committee in terms of Section 29 of the NFS Act.
5. The Secretary should ensure that the social audit machinery postulated by Section 28 of the NFS Act is established at the earliest.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the State Governments are obligated to implement the National Food Security Act, 2013, in letter and spirit and that the Central Government has the power to issue directions to the State Governments to ensure compliance with the Act. The judgment reinforces the existing legal position regarding the mandatory nature of parliamentary laws and the constitutional obligation of the states to comply with such laws. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment provides a strong impetus for the effective implementation of the NFS Act.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Swaraj Abhiyan vs. Union of India is a significant step towards ensuring the effective implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013. The Court’s directions to the Central and State Governments are aimed at addressing the lapses in implementation and ensuring that the benefits of the Act reach the intended beneficiaries. The judgment reinforces the principle that laws passed by Parliament must be implemented in letter and spirit by the State Governments and that the Central Government has the power to ensure such compliance. The judgment also highlights the importance of independent and transparent mechanisms for grievance redressal and the need for properly constituted bodies to oversee the implementation of social welfare legislation.

Category

Parent Category: National Food Security Act, 2013

Child Categories:

• Section 14, National Food Security Act, 2013
• Section 15, National Food Security Act, 2013
• Section 16, National Food Security Act, 2013
• Section 28, National Food Security Act, 2013
• Section 29, National Food Security Act, 2013
• Grievance Redressal Mechanism
• State Food Commission
• Social Audit
• Vigilance Committee
• Food Security
• Social Welfare Legislation

Parent Category: Constitution of India

Child Categories:

• Article 256, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What is the National Food Security Act, 2013?

A: The National Food Security Act, 2013 is a law passed by the Indian Parliament to provide subsidized food grains to a large section of the Indian population. It aims to ensure food security for the most vulnerable people.

Q: What did the Supreme Court say about the implementation of the NFS Act?

A: The Supreme Court expressed concern that many State Governments were not implementing the NFS Act properly. The Court directed the States to take immediate steps to implement the Act effectively.

Q: What is a District Grievance Redressal Officer (DGRO)?

A: A District Grievance Redressal Officer is an official appointed by the State Government to address complaints related to the distribution of food grains under the NFS Act. The Supreme Court said that the DGRO should be independent of the officials responsible for implementing the Act.

Q: What is a State Food Commission?

A: A State Food Commission is a body constituted by the State Government to monitor the implementation of the NFS Act. The Supreme Court said that the State Food Commission should be a separate body and not an existing commission like the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Q: What is a social audit?

A: A social audit is a process where the public reviews the implementation of a government program or scheme. The Supreme Court directed that social audits should be conducted periodically to ensure the effective implementation of the NFS Act.

Q: What are Vigilance Committees?

A: Vigilance Committees are groups set up to monitor the Targeted Public Distribution System and ensure that it is functioning properly. The Supreme Court directed that Vigilance Committees should be established at various levels.

Q: What is the role of the Central Government in implementing the NFS Act?

A: The Central Government has the power to issue directions to State Governments for the effective implementation of the NFS Act. The Central Government is also responsible for providing financial and technical support to the States.

Q: What is the significance of Article 256 of the Constitution in this case?

A: Article 256 of the Constitution states that the executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament. The Supreme Court relied on this article to emphasize that State Governments are obligated to comply with the NFS Act.

Q: What are the key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s judgment?

A: The key takeaways are that State Governments must implement laws passed by the Parliament in letter and spirit, the Central Government has the power to issue directions to State Governments to ensure compliance, and that independent and transparent mechanisms are necessary for the effective implementation of social welfare legislation.

Q: What is the ratio decidendi of the case?

A: The ratio decidendi of the case is that the State Governments are obligated to implement the National Food Security Act, 2013, in letter and spirit and that the Central Government has the power to issue directions to the State Governments to ensure compliance with the Act.

Q: What are the implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment?

A: The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on the implementation of social welfare legislation in India. It will also serve as a reminder to State Governments that they are obligated to comply with laws made by the Parliament and that the Central Government has the power to ensure such compliance. The judgment may also lead to greater accountability and transparency in the implementation of social welfare schemes.

Q: What are the directions issued by the Supreme Court?

A: The Supreme Court directed the Secretary in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution of the Government of India to convene meetings with the Secretaries of all State Governments and Union Territories to review the implementation of the NFS Act. The Court also directed the State Governments to notify rules for a Grievance Redressal Mechanism, designate independent District Grievance Redressal Officers, constitute a State Food Commission, establish Vigilance Committees, and ensure that the social audit machinery is established at the earliest.