Supreme Court Mandates Decentralized Nutrition Programs, Ousts Large Contractors: Vaishnorani Mahila Bachat Gat vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 26 February 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 155

Judges: Arun Mishra J. and Deepak Gupta J.

Can the State prioritize large corporations over local women’s self-help groups when awarding contracts for providing nutritional food to children and mothers? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case concerning the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS). The court emphasized the importance of empowering local communities and ensuring that the benefits of social welfare programs reach those they are intended for, rather than being siphoned off by large businesses. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Deepak Gupta.

Case Background

The case arose from a challenge to tender notices issued by the State of Maharashtra for the supply of ready-to-cook food to Anganwadi centers. These centers provide supplementary nutritional food to children, pregnant women, and lactating mothers under the ICDS scheme. The appellants, primarily local women’s self-help groups (Mahila Mandals), argued that the tender conditions were designed to favor large corporate houses, effectively excluding them from participating. They contended that this went against the spirit of previous Supreme Court orders that favored local community involvement in such programs.

The core issue was whether the contracts should be awarded to local Mahila Mandals, which operate on democratic lines with local women’s participation, or to large corporations/contractors under the guise of tender conditions. The appellants argued that the state was violating the Supreme Court’s previous rulings and the intent of the ICDS scheme by imposing unrealistic conditions that favored large industrial units, often with close ties to political figures, over genuine self-help groups. The appellants sought to ensure that the contracts were awarded to local organizations that could provide better quality food and contribute to community empowerment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially challenged the tender notices before the High Court of Bombay. The Nagpur Bench dismissed the writ petition, upholding the tender conditions. However, the Aurangabad Bench partly allowed the petition, setting aside the tender notice to the extent of reducing the number of products to 70, while upholding the validity of all other terms and conditions. This divergence in opinions led to the matter being brought before the Supreme Court. The appellants contended that the High Court failed to appreciate that the tender conditions were designed to favor large corporations and excluded local self-help groups, which was against the spirit of the Supreme Court’s previous orders and the objectives of the ICDS scheme.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following key legal provisions:

• National Food Security Act, 2013: This Act aims to reform the public distribution system and ensure food security. The court highlighted Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Act, which outline the nutritional support to pregnant women and lactating mothers, nutritional support to children, and the prevention and management of child malnutrition.
• Section 4, National Food Security Act, 2013: This section states that every pregnant woman and lactating mother is entitled to a free meal during pregnancy and six months after childbirth through the local Anganwadi, to meet nutritional standards. It also includes a maternity benefit of not less than rupees six thousand.
  
  “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 childbirth, 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 installments as may be prescribed by the Central Government”
• Section 5, National Food Security Act, 2013: This section states that every child up to the age of fourteen years shall have the following entitlements for his nutritional needs:
  
  “(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: Provided that for children below the age of six months, exclusive breastfeeding shall be promoted; (b) in the case of children, up to class VIII or within the age group of six to fourteen years, whichever is applicable, one mid-day meal, free of charge, everyday, except on school holidays, in all schools run by local bodies, Government and Government aided schools, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II.”
• Section 6, National Food Security Act, 2013: This section states that 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.
  
  “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.”
• Supplementary Nutritional (under ICDS) Rules, 2015: These rules, framed under Section 39 of the National Food Security Act, 2013, outline the procedures for preparing meals and maintaining standards. The court specifically referred to Rule 7, which deals with the preparation of meals and maintenance of its standard and quality, and Rule 9, which deals with the responsibility to monitor and review arrangement for supplementary nutrition.
• Rule 7, Supplementary Nutritional (under ICDS) Rules, 2015: This rule specifies the procedures for procurement of food items and preparation of meals by the State Governments and the Union Territory Administrations.
  
  “The procurement of food items and preparation of meals by the State Governments and the Union Territory Administrations shall be in accordance with the guidelines, instructions or orders issued by the Central Government from time to time in conformity with various directions issued by Supreme Court of India, the provisions of Schedule II to the Act and any other law for the time being in force.”
• Rule 9, Supplementary Nutritional (under ICDS) Rules, 2015: This rule outlines the responsibility of the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations to monitor and review the status of arrangement for Supplementary Nutrition, and also ensures engagement of Self Help Groups.
  
  “The respective State Governments and Union Territory Administrations, and the Monitoring and Review Committees at the National, State, District, Block and Anganwadi levels, constituted by the Central Government in the Ministry of Women and Child Development from time to time, shall be responsible to monitor and review the status of arrangement for Supplementary Nutrition, convergence with the line departments to ensure water and sanitation facilities, ensure regular functioning of Anganwadi centres, ensure regular supply of Supplementary Nutrition at Anganwadi centres without disruptions and use of iodised or iron-fortified iodised salts, ensure monitoring and supervision visits by officials at different levels as per norms, method of delivery of supplementary food at Anganwadi centres, engagement of Self Help Groups, ensure supply and quality of Supplementary Nutrition through them and all other issues relating to the above, as per their roles defined in the guidelines issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Women and Child Development from time to time”

The court emphasized that the legal framework aims to ensure that nutritional programs reach the intended beneficiaries through local community participation, aligning with the constitutional goals of social justice and empowerment.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the tender conditions favored large corporate houses, effectively excluding local self-help groups (Mahila Mandals) from participating in the supply of nutritional food for Anganwadi centers.
• They contended that the tender conditions, such as requiring a 25% turnover in any of the last three financial years, were unrealistic and designed to exclude small local organizations.
• The appellants highlighted that the state was violating previous Supreme Court orders, particularly the orders in PUCL v. Union of India, which mandated the involvement of local communities and self-help groups in such programs.
• They emphasized that local organizations are better suited to provide locally sourced, nutritious food, and that the involvement of large contractors often leads to corruption and poor quality.
• The appellants also pointed out that some of the so-called Mahila Mandals who applied under the tender were actually large industrial units with close ties to political figures, and not genuine self-help groups.
• They relied on reports from the Commissioner appointed in PUCL v. Union of India, which highlighted large-scale irregularities in the supply of supplementary nutrition and the nexus between politicians, bureaucrats, and private contractors.
• The appellants also cited a report by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on the functioning of ICDS in Gorakhpur (U.P.), which highlighted the poor quality of THR supplied by contractors and recommended the decentralization of the feeding program through local women’s groups.
• They also relied on the National Rural Livelihood Mission guidelines for the involvement of SHGs in the supply of THR under ICDS.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The State of Maharashtra defended the tender conditions, arguing that they were necessary to ensure the quality and safety of the food supplied to Anganwadi centers.
• They contended that the conditions were based on the advice of the Food and Nutrition Board, which recommended the use of extrusion technology and micronutrient fortification, requiring factory-based production.
• The state pointed out that the recipes provided by the Deputy Technical Advisor, Food and Nutrition Board (Western Region), mandated the use of extrusion technology, which is difficult at the level of Anganwadi Centers.
• They argued that they were following the guidelines provided by the Central Government, which emphasized the need for fortified food and adherence to food safety standards.
• The state also presented information on the selected women institutions for the supply of THR, highlighting that some of the Mahila Mandals were actually operated by male members, merely projecting female relatives for documentation purposes.
• The State submitted that the observations made by the Court in Shagun Mahila Udyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra and Others were based on the recommendations of the Deputy Technical Director, Western Region, which was wrongly represented as recommendations of the Government of India.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following principal issue:

• Whether contracts for the supply of food for Anganwadis should be given to local Mahila Mandals run along democratic lines with local women participating or whether such contracts ought to be given by the State to large corporates/contractors under the guise of the conditions of the tender.

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:

Cases:

• PUCL v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No.196/2001) [Supreme Court of India]: The Court referred to its previous orders in this case, which directed that contractors should not be used for the supply of nutrition in Anganwadis, and that ICDS funds should be spent by making use of village communities, self-help groups, and Mahila Mandals. The Court noted that the State was in violation of these orders.
• Shagun Mahila Udyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra and Others (Civil Appeal No.7104/2011) [Supreme Court of India]: The Court noted that its observations in this case were based on a misrepresentation of the Government of India’s recommendations regarding the use of extrusion technology. The Court clarified that the Government of India had stated that the use of extrusion technology was only suggestive and not mandatory.

Legal Provisions:

• National Food Security Act, 2013: The Court considered Sections 4, 5, and 6 of this Act, which deal with nutritional support to pregnant women and lactating mothers, nutritional support to children, and the prevention and management of child malnutrition.
• Supplementary Nutritional (under ICDS) Rules, 2015: The Court considered Rules 7 and 9 of these rules, which deal with the preparation of meals and maintenance of its standard and quality, and the responsibility to monitor and review arrangement for supplementary nutrition.

[TABLE] of Authorities Considered:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• PUCL v. Union of India [Supreme Court of India]: The Court followed the directions given in this case, emphasizing that the contracts should not be given to contractors and that local communities should be involved in the supply of nutrition.
• Shagun Mahila Udyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra and Others [Supreme Court of India]: The Court clarified that the observations made in this case were based on a misrepresentation of the Government of India’s recommendations. The Court stated that the use of extrusion technology was not mandatory.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure that social welfare programs benefit the intended beneficiaries, which are the local communities, and not large corporations. The Court emphasized the importance of decentralization and the involvement of local self-help groups in providing nutritional food for Anganwadi centers. The Court was concerned that the tender conditions were designed to favor large corporations and excluded local self-help groups, which was against the spirit of the Supreme Court’s previous orders and the objectives of the ICDS scheme. The Court also took into account the misrepresentation of the Government of India’s recommendations regarding the use of extrusion technology. The Court highlighted that the State should follow the policy of the Central Government and the orders of the Court, which mandated decentralized supply of nutrition through local groups.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

“Fact:Law” Ratio Table:

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court also considered alternative interpretations, such as the State’s argument that the tender conditions were necessary for food quality and safety. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the conditions were arbitrarily fixed and excluded local groups. The Court also rejected the State’s argument that the use of extrusion technology was mandatory, clarifying that the Government of India had stated that the use of extrusion technology was only suggestive and not mandatory. The Court concluded that the State had failed to adhere to the policy of the Central Government and the orders of the Court, which mandated decentralized supply of nutrition through local groups.

The Supreme Court held that the tender conditions were not valid as they were arbitrarily fixed. The Court directed that the tenders should be invited afresh, within four weeks, strictly as per the policy and observations made in the judgment. The Court also directed that the unit area should be formed at panchayat or group of panchayats level, so that the real intention behind the policy is fulfilled in its real sense and supply should be decentralized as much as possible. The Court restrained the State Government from continuing the existing system of supply in the interregnum period and directed the State to make alternative arrangements within ten days.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The contractors shall not be used for the supply of nutrition in Anganwadis and preferably ICDS funds shall be spent by making use of village communities, self-help groups and Mahila Mandals for buying of grains and preparation of meals.”
• “The Central Government, through the Ministry of Women and Child Development and Food and Nutrition Board office vide its letter dated 28th July 2009, circulated the Recipe to the State Government (respondent No.1) as per new norms of ICDS for preparation of the food.”
• “In the meantime, we permit the Government of Gujarat to continue the system under which it has been procuring for distribution take-home ration as EFBF from the original manufacturers by inviting competitive bids for a period of one more year.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Decentralization of Nutrition Programs: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of decentralizing nutrition programs and involving local self-help groups in the supply of food for Anganwadi centers.
• Rejection of Large Contractors: The Court rejected the involvement of large corporations and contractors in the supply of nutrition, highlighting that such involvement often leads to corruption and poor quality.
• Empowerment of Local Communities: The judgment underscores the need to empower local communities and ensure that the benefits of social welfare programs reach those they are intended for.
• Compliance with Central Government Policy: The Court directed the State Governments to comply with the policy of the Central Government and the orders of the Court, which mandate decentralized supply of nutrition through local groups.
• Revision of Tender Conditions: The Court directed that the tender conditions should be revised to ensure that local self-help groups are not excluded from participating in the supply of nutrition.

The judgment has significant implications for future cases, as it sets a precedent for prioritizing local community involvement in social welfare programs. It also clarifies that the State Governments should not impose conditions that favor large corporations over local self-help groups. The judgment has the potential to bring about a major change in the way nutrition programs are implemented in India, ensuring that the benefits of these programs reach the intended beneficiaries and contribute to community empowerment.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The tenders are to be invited afresh within four weeks, strictly as per the policy and observations made in this judgment.
• The unit area should be formed at panchayat or group of panchayats level, so that the real intention behind the policy is fulfilled in its real sense and supply should be decentralized as much as possible.
• The State Government is restrained from continuing the existing system of supply in the interregnum period.
• The State Government should make alternative arrangements within ten days.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State Governments must prioritize local self-help groups and Mahila Mandals over large corporations when awarding contracts for the supply of nutritional food for Anganwadi centers. The judgment also clarifies that the tender conditions should not be arbitrarily fixed and should not exclude small local organizations. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case has further developed the law in the following ways:

• Clarification on Decentralization: The judgment clarifies the importance of decentralization in the implementation of social welfare programs. It mandates that the State Governments should prioritize local self-help groups and Mahila Mandals in the supply of nutrition, ensuring that the benefits of these programs reach the intended beneficiaries.
• Rejection of Favorable Tender Conditions: The Court has rejected the practice of framing tender conditions that favor large corporations and exclude local self-help groups. This ensures that the contracts are awarded to organizations that are better suited to provide locally sourced and nutritious food.
• Emphasis on Community Empowerment: The judgment emphasizes the need to empower local communities and ensure that the benefits of social welfare programs reach those they are intended for. This promotes the involvement of local women in the implementation of these programs, contributing to their empowerment.
• Compliance with Supreme Court Directives: The judgment reinforces the importance of complying with the directives of the Supreme Court. It clarifies that the State Governments should not violate the orders of the Court or the policy of the Central Government, which mandate decentralized supply of nutrition through local groups.
• Reiteration of Previous Orders: The Court reiterated its previous orders in PUCL v. Union of India, which directed that contractors should not be used for the supply of nutrition in Anganwadis and that ICDS funds should be spent by making use of village communities, self-help groups, and Mahila Mandals.
• Clarification on Extrusion Technology: The Court clarified that the use of extrusion technology is not mandatory for the production of supplementary nutrition and that local self-help groups can prepare food using traditional methods.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Vaishnorani Mahila Bachat Gat vs. State of Maharashtra is a landmark decision that has far-reaching implications for the implementation of social welfare programs in India. The Court’s emphasis on decentralization, community empowerment, and the rejection of large contractors sets a precedent for future cases. The judgment ensures that the benefits of nutrition programs reach the intended beneficiaries and contribute to the empowerment of local communities. The Court’s decision is a significant step towards ensuring that social welfare programs are implemented in a manner that is both effective and equitable, aligning with the constitutional goals of social justice and empowerment.