17 Jan 2024 3:40 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 17) reserved judgment on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition, which sought to formulate a community kitchen policy to avoid starvation deaths. At first, the Bench, comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, was not convinced to keep the petition alive. However, after much persuasion from the petitioner's counsel, the Court granted a week's time to file an updated convenience compilation and reserved judgment.
In a previous hearing in January 2022, the then Chief Justice of India NV Ramana had emphasised the need for a national policy to prevent starvation deaths.
“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,” CJI told the Centre.
Apart from this, the former Chief Justice also categorically said that the hunger has to be satisfied and asked the attorney general to 'take a humanitarian angle'.
“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.” CJI had said
Court-Room Exchange For The Instant Hearing
At the commencement of the hearing, the petitioner apprised the Bench that the Union has to respond. Further, since 2020, numerous undertakings have been given in the Court that Union is coming up with a scheme. To support this, the Counsel, representing the petitioner, took the Bench through the last order. Therein, time was sought by the Union in order to come forward with the scheme.
“Even otherwise, the government themselves have come out in the news and said that they are considering coming up with the scheme. But the response that has been filed here in the affidavit is that States are agreeable to start these kitchens to combat hunger, if the central government provides for either food grains or any kind of funding.,” Advocate Ashima Mandla informed the bench.
At this, Justice Trivedi questioned about the maintainability of the petition. She said that these are policy decisions. Thereafter, the Bench heard the Union's response. Senior Advocate R. Balasubramanian, appearing for the Union, stated:
“So far these community kitchens are concerned, the Union stand is very clear. Whatever scheme is existing today (for) supply of foodgrains 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 matter of policy….”
At this, Petitioner's counsel quickly responded, “That does not take away the fact that about 20 crore people do not have food to eat.”
Petitioner tried convincing the Bench that the entire purpose of this PIL was to create a scheme. To highlight that the Court has previously taken this matter very seriously, she referred to an earlier order imposing an exorbitant cost of Rs 5 lakhs on States which defaulted in filing their affidavits.
In a lighter vein, Justice Trivedi said, “Now the elections are coming, so they will be formulating all schemes. Further, Justice Trivedi stated, “No need to keep it alive.”
To this, Petitioner submitted, “Let them give an undertaking that they will be coming up with a scheme because people, milords, cannot be left to having no means.”
The Counsel further, to bolster her submissions, cited statistics. She submitted, “The Stats today that read are thar 89% which die under the age of 5 are dying due to starvation…This is perhaps the 30th time the matter is coming up. We are well beyond that fact to prove that people are not dying in this country due to hunger. But the Courts cannot turn their back away to say…”
Moving ahead with the proceedings, the Bench examined the affidavit filed by the Union. At this stage, Balasubramanian submitted so far as the establishment of the community kitchen per se is concerned, it is the State's subject. They have to deal with it.
Petitioner's Counsel, on her turn, gave the Bench the reason to continue with the petition:
“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 18…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….You lordship may facilitate, implementation, that states will have to do.”
Ultimately, she pleaded with the Bench to allow the petition to file the updated Convenience Compilation. Accordingly, the Bench reserved the order after granting one week to file the same.
Background
On 16th November 2021, the Supreme Court granted three weeks to 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.
The Bench had also recorded unhappiness over the affidavit filed by the under-secretary of the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Administration. The bench observed that the Principal Secretary had to file the affidavit.
The Bench was informed that pursuant to the October 27, 2021 order, the Centre held a virtual meeting with the States to obtain their views on community kitchen schemes, and the information about that has been provided in the affidavit. On October 27, the Court had passed an order directing the Central Government to come up with a scheme for establishing pan-India community kitchens after interacting with the state governments.
The then Attorney General KK Venugopal had undertaken that the Centre will come out with a concrete scheme. He said that something can be worked out within the framework of the National Food Security Act.
Case Title: Anun Dhawan and others versus Union of India and others, WP(c) No.1103/201