The Supreme Court criticized the Allahabad High Court for passing interim orders in a food distribution case despite the matter being under its review. It set aside all such orders and allowed the Uttar Pradesh government to continue the scheme while ensuring quality.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India criticized the Allahabad High Court for continuing to pass interim orders in a case related to a food distribution scheme for lactating mothers and young children, even after the matter was already being considered by the Supreme Court.
A Bench consisting of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan stated that the High Court should have acted more responsibly.
“In our view, the learned Additional Solicitor General is right in her contention that the High Court has proceeded in a manner bordering on an attempt to overreach this Court. The course of action adopted by the High Court, we are afraid, was certainly neither warranted nor desirable on facts and in the circumstances … Ideally, the High Court ought to have awaited further orders, since this Court was seized of the proceedings, instead of giving further interim directions as to how the appellants ought to act in the interregnum … We would, thus, expect the High Court to act more responsibly in future,”
-the Supreme Court said.
The top court also struck down a “wholly unreasoned“ interim order issued by the High Court on November 11, 2024, which had “abruptly“ stopped the food supply scheme meant for lactating mothers and young children.
In its November 11 order, the Allahabad High Court had prohibited the Uttar Pradesh government from supplying food under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme while a petition regarding the tender process was still pending. This decision was challenged by the Uttar Pradesh government in the Supreme Court.
On December 19, 2024, the Supreme Court found that the November 11 order lacked proper reasoning and decided to put a hold on it.
“Supply of food items to be used by lactating mothers and young children ought not be stalled without reason,”
-the Supreme Court observed.
Despite this, the very next day, on December 20, the Allahabad High Court revisited the case and passed another interim order modifying its earlier decision. The new order allowed the food distribution scheme to continue for the third and fourth quarters of 2024-25, taking into account the Supreme Court’s December 19 observations.
However, on February 17, 2025 (Monday), the Supreme Court expressed surprise that the High Court had issued a new order despite the Supreme Court’s stay order from December 19.
The Supreme Court then decided to set aside all interim orders passed by the Allahabad High Court in this case. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s November 11 order had no valid reasons and should not have been issued.
“The impugned interim order (contained in paragraph 5) being wholly unreasoned and having been abruptly passed more than three years after institution of the Public Interest Litigation, the same is liable to be and is, accordingly, set aside. All other interim directions passed in the Public Interest Litigation stand set aside,”
-the Supreme Court ruled.
The Court also noted that the High Court had now reserved its final decision in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the food distribution tender. It stated that the High Court should now resolve the matter as per legal principles.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to continue the food distribution scheme while ensuring that the food quality remains up to standard.
“We make it clear that the appellants shall be entitled to implement the subject Scheme for supply of food items maintaining the requisite quality, to be used by lactating mothers and young children, till final disposal of the Public Interest Litigation,”
-the Supreme Court stated.
The Uttar Pradesh government was represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati and Advocates Yasharth Kant, Poornima Singh, Suryaansh Kishan Razdan, and Sonal Kushwah.
The respondents were represented by Advocates Abhinav Shrivastava, Shivang Rawat, and RP Singh.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
