The Supreme Court of India, under the leadership of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi, recently upheld a decision made by the Lakshadweep administration. This decision pertained to the removal of meat from the mid-day meal menus in schools and the subsequent closure of state-run dairy farms on the islands. The challenge to this decision was rooted in a September 2021 judgment from the Kerala High Court. This court had previously dismissed a petition that opposed the Lakshadweep administration’s actions.
The apex court’s judgment emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. Specifically, the court stated that it cannot interfere with policy or administrative decisions unless there is a clear and identifiable legal breach. Justice Bose, during the proceedings, raised a pertinent question regarding the vested legal right associated with having only non-vegetarian food as part of the mid-day meal menu. He clarified that while the Food Security Act might guarantee a right to mid-day meals, it doesn’t necessarily dictate the specific items on the menu.
Senior Advocate IH Syed, who represented the public interest litigant, presented an argument centered on cultural and gastronomic preferences. He highlighted that the islands have had a tradition of including non-vegetarian items, such as chicken and beef, in the mid-day meals since the 1950s. This tradition predates the introduction of the national mid-day meal scheme. On the other side, Additional Solicitor-General KM Nataraj defended the actions of the union territory administration. He emphasized that the nutritional standards set by the National Food Security Act, 2013, were still being met, even with the changes. Furthermore, he justified the closure of the government-run dairy farms by pointing to their financial unsustainability.
The backdrop to this case is significant. In 2021, the Lakshadweep administration made the controversial decision to ban chicken and other meats from school midday meals. Additionally, they mandated the immediate closure of all dairy farms overseen by the Department of Animal Husbandry. Local lawyer Ajmal Ahmed took issue with these decisions and sought recourse from the Kerala High Court. While the high court initially halted the administration’s orders, they later dismissed Ahmed’s plea in September 2021. Undeterred, Ahmed escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. He argued that the changes to the food menu infringed upon the right to choice of food, a right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
After considering the arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court decided not to intervene. They noted that while certain meats were excluded from the menu, other non-vegetarian options like eggs and fish remained. This case serves as a testament to the ongoing dialogue about the balance between administrative decisions, cultural norms, and the rights of the populace.