Previously, the Supreme Court directed the Central Government as a last opportunity to frame a pan-India policy on community kitchens after taking the view of different state governments. The Court underscored that a welfare state has a constitutional duty to ensure that no one dies of hunger.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgment on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the establishment of a national policy for community kitchens. This decision comes after a detailed hearing where the complexities of policy-making and the urgent need to address hunger were at the forefront.
In a previous hearing in January 2022, the then Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, had underscored the necessity of a national policy to prevent starvation deaths.
He stated,
“We are saying why don’t you think of some model scheme. We are not asking you to make a strict scheme that states have to follow. In different states, there are different problems, food habits etc. We understand that,”
highlighting the diverse needs across states.
The former Chief Justice also emphasized the critical nature of the issue, saying,
“The hunger has to be satisfied. Poor people are on street and suffering from that. Everyone is admitting there’s an issue. Take a humanitarian angle and try to find a solution. Ask your officers to apply their minds.”
During the latest hearing, the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Ashima Mandla, informed the bench that the Union had previously indicated its intention to come up with a scheme. She pointed out that the Union’s affidavit suggested that states were ready to start community kitchens if the central government provided funding or food grains.
Justice Trivedi, however, questioned the maintainability of the petition, noting that these are policy decisions. Senior Advocate R. Balasubramanian, representing the Union, clarified the government’s stance, stating,
“So far these community kitchens are concerned, the Union stand is very clear. Whatever scheme is existing today for supply of food grains and all is being undertaken. So, far what they want is that funding should be done by Centre to run these community kitchens…this is beyond the scope of…this is a matter of policy.”
The petitioner’s counsel countered, highlighting the gravity of the situation with the statement,
“That does not take away the fact that about 20 crore people do not have food to eat.”
The counsel further cited alarming statistics, noting that 89% of children dying under the age of five are due to starvation. She urged the Court to facilitate the development of a comprehensive scheme, stating,
“There are multiple schemes, no doubt. The States and the Union are doing the best they can…but still, in terms of food security, India’s ranking…we are at number 80…even otherwise, the number of deaths that are taking place are alarming. The schemes that are coming in, they are segregated across age groups and they are only for select persons. There is no scheme that covers the population in general….We are not even asking for implementation. We are asking that a scheme be developed….Your lordship may facilitate, implementation, that states will have to do.”
After considering the arguments and examining the affidavit filed by the Union, the Bench reserved its order, granting one week for the petitioner to file an updated Convenience Compilation.
This case highlights the ongoing struggle against hunger in India and the complexities involved in formulating policies that address the needs of diverse populations across the nation. The Supreme Court’s decision is eagerly awaited, as it will have significant implications for the formulation of policies aimed at combating hunger and ensuring food security in India.
Case Title: Anun Dhawan and others versus Union of India and others, WP(c) No.1103/201
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
