Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, claiming to be social activists, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions against States and Union Territories to formulate a scheme implementing Community Kitchens to combat hunger, malnutrition, and starvation deaths. They also sought directions against the National Legal Services Authority and Central Government regarding food security measures beyond the Public Distribution System. The Court had previously directed the Union of India to consult stakeholders about Community Kitchens schemes. In response, States and Union Territories filed affidavits detailing various existing schemes like Poshan Abhiyan, Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana, Mid-Day Meal, and others, stating no starvation deaths were reported. The Union of India emphasized its commitment to combating hunger through multiple schemes. The petitioners acknowledged these efforts but argued that constitutional duties require ensuring basic sustainability of human life. The Court examined whether to direct implementation of Community Kitchens. It recognized that while the Constitution does not explicitly provide a Right to Food, Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity and right to food, and Article 47 imposes a duty on the State to raise nutrition levels. The Court noted the enactment of the National Food Security Act, 2013, which provides a systematic legal framework with a rights-based approach, including various schemes and grievance redressal mechanisms. The Court held that the scope of judicial review in policy matters is limited; courts cannot examine the correctness or suitability of policies or direct States to implement particular schemes. Since the NFSA provides a comprehensive framework and States have implemented various schemes under it, the Court declined to direct the implementation of Community Kitchens, leaving it open to States to explore such alternatives under the NFSA. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Right to Food - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 21, 47 - Petitioners sought directions for Community Kitchens Scheme to combat hunger and malnutrition - Court recognized that though Constitution does not explicitly provide Right to Food, Article 21 includes Right to live with human dignity and right to food, and Article 47 imposes duty on State to raise nutrition and living standards - Held that constitutional guarantees exist for ensuring food security (Paras 5-6). B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Policy Matters - Constitution of India, 1950 - Scope of judicial review in policy matters - Court examined whether to direct implementation of Community Kitchens Scheme - Court reiterated settled principle that scope of judicial review in policy matters is limited, courts cannot examine correctness or suitability of policy, nor direct States to implement particular policy - Held that legality of policy, not wisdom, is subject to judicial review (Paras 8-9). C) Food Security Law - Implementation of Schemes - National Food Security Act, 2013 - Petitioners sought directions for Community Kitchens Scheme - Court noted that NFSA provides systematic legal framework with rights-based approach for food security, including various schemes like Targeted Public Distribution System, Mid-day Meal Scheme, ICDS, and grievance redressal mechanisms - Held that since comprehensive legal framework exists and States have implemented various schemes under NFSA, Court would not direct implementation of Community Kitchens Scheme (Paras 6-7, 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Court should direct States and Union Territories to formulate and implement a Community Kitchens Scheme to combat hunger, malnutrition and starvation deaths
Final Decision
The Writ Petition is disposed of. Court declined to direct implementation of Community Kitchens Scheme, noting existing legal framework under National Food Security Act and limited scope of judicial review in policy matters.
Law Points
- Judicial review of policy matters is limited
- Courts cannot examine correctness or appropriateness of policy
- Courts cannot direct States to implement particular policy
- Legality of policy is subject to judicial review not wisdom
- Right to life under Article 21 includes right to food and basic necessities
- Article 47 imposes duty on State to raise nutrition and living standards
- National Food Security Act provides systematic legal framework for food security
