Menu

ANUN DHAWAN & ORS. V UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Case Comment, Publications
CASE COMMENTARY

ANUN DHAWAN & ORS.          ………………PETITIONERS

            V.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.        …….………… RESPONDENTS   (2024)

ABOUT THE CASE:

Case Title: Anun Dhawan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: (2024) 2 S.C.R. 812: 2024 INSC 136

Quorum: Honorable Justice Pankaj Mithal, Honorable Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Date of Judgment: February 22, 2024

Case Number: Writ petition (civil) No. 1103 of 2019

Author: Honorable Justice Bela M. Trivedi

  1. FACTS:
  • The petitioners, Anun Dhawan and others, are the changemakers who have filed the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
  • The petition is filed against the state and union territories for the formulation of “COMMUNITY KITCHENS” to reduce hunger, malnutrition, starvation, and deaths.
  • The petitioners stated that NLSA (NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY) should formulate a scheme to foster the provisions mentioned in Article 50(1) of the Constitution of India
  • They stated that the central government should create a National Food Grid beyond the Public Distribution Scheme.
  • The petitioners highlighted the constitutional provisions, i.e., Article 21 and Article 47, which talks about the Right to Food and the State’s duty to improve Public Health.
  • The court addressed the work of  NLSASeveral States and Union Territories also submitted their report regarding the existing schemes (Annapurna Scheme, Antyodaya Yojana Scheme) to prove that they are working promptly to reduce malnutrition and starvation and to provide food Security to the whole nation. 
  • The Supreme Court declined implementation of the Community Kitchens because of limited Judicial Review and left it to the State and Union Territories to determine whether such a policy is mandatory or not. Hence, the petition was disposed of.
  1. ISSUES RAISED:

The main issues in the present case were:

  • Whether Judicial Intervention is necessary to direct the implementation of Community Kitchens.
  • Whether NLSA appropriately addresses Food and Nutritional Security.
  1. CONTENTION:

Petitioners

  • The Council for the petitioner argued that, though the central and state governments have taken steps for the reduction of hunger and malnutrition, it is the constitutional duty of the government to make sure that people are provided with the essentials.
  • They argued that current welfare schemes lack uniformity and are unable to provide Food Stability to the nation.
  • They highlighted Article 21 and Article 47 by stating that the “RIGHT TO FOOD” is implicit in Article 21, and as per Article 47, the state must provide Nutrition, Standard of Living, and Public Health. That’s why the establishment of a national food grid and community kitchens is essential to prevent deaths due to starvation.

Respondents

  • The Council for respondents highlighted in detail various schemes like Midday Meal, Take Home Ration, Poshan Abhiyan, One Nation One Rashan Card, etc. 
  • They also provided a report stating that No Deaths were caused due to starvation.
  • They highlighted that the Union of India is committed towards its work by citing that “It was the Aatma Nirbhar Bharat Package that supplied food grains in the Covid Crisis.”
  • They contended that NFSA was enacted keeping in mind the UN GOALS as well as constitutional provisions. NFSA is fulfilling its duty of ensuring Food Security and Nutritional Security punctually and uniformly, and it includes special provisions for Pregnant and Lactating women, Anganwadi Centers, and Integrated Child Development.
  • They stated that the Judiciary, Legislative, and Executive are independent in their sphere, and no one should interfere with each other’s work; that’s why judicial review cannot overrule the executive.

DECISION:

The court upheld that:

  • NFSA is taking all necessary steps to address the starvation of food.
  • Judiciary, because of its limited role, cannot direct the executive for the formation of new frameworks, policies, or schemes just because a more intelligent, well-judged, or thoughtful solution is available. So, it was up to the States and Union Territories to determine whether Community Kitchen is necessary or not. There was no compulsion by the court.
  1. RATIONALE:

The petitioners approached the Honorable court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India (Writ jurisdiction). They contended that the concept of Community Kitchens should be implemented to stop the deaths resulting from starvation. They relied on constitutional provisions, i.e., Articles 21 and 47, to prove their point, but the Supreme Court did not direct the State and Union Territories to establish community kitchens, and the rationale was:

  • SEPARATION OF POWERS: The Indian Constitution is a blend of a Unitary and Federal system, so all forms of government are independent in their spheres, but in case of emergency, all forms work under the direction of the central government. That’s why courts have no right to direct the executive just because a more insightful alternative exists. The court has no power to evaluate the policies of the executive until there is a violation of fundamental rights. The court also observed that the existing schemes under the NFSA (Midday Meal Scheme, Ration cards, Public Distribution System) are enough to address starvation malnutrition, hence there is no need for judicial intervention.
  • CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS: Right to Food is implicit in Article 21, and as per Article 47 The state must ensure Food Security, but when NFSA schemes already ensure these rights, there is no need for judicial action unless these frameworks are unconstitutional or inadequate.
  1. DEFECTS OF LAW:
  1. The decision made it clear that the judiciary’s role is limited to legality, not up to adequacy. It clearly states that even if there exists some gap in the framework of the center or the state, the court cannot compel to adopt or make changes in the existing policy, unless there is a violation of fundamental rights.
  2. This decision will badly impact those whose rights are being infringed upon by the existing policy.
  3. Separation of power simply states that the court can’t prescribe social welfare policies because policy formulation is under executive control.
  4.  INFERENCE:

That decision of the Supreme Court not to direct States and Union Territories “Community Kitchens” clearly explains that:

  1. DIVISION OF POWER: The court respects the principle of separation of powers, and it will not interfere in the executive’s work.
  2. LEGALITY OVER INADEQUACY: The Courts focus on legality, which means if the policies are inadequate but do not impact the fundamental rights of citizens, the court will not pass any order against them.
  3. RIGHT TO FOOD: The Right to Food under Article 21 is fulfilled by existing schemes,  hence the court did not direct the establishment of Community Kitchens.

    So, In conclusion, the courts decision respects the separation of powers, but certain defects in this decision must be focused on.

BHOOMI TANEJA

GEETA INSTITUTE OF LAW