The Right to Food Campaign began with a public interest litigation (PIL), initiated by a writ petition submitted to the Supreme Court in April 2001 by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Rajasthan. This case, which is handled by Human Rights Law Network, is technically known as “PUCL vs Union of India and others (Writ Petition [Civil] No. 196 of 2001”). This page describes some important aspects of the legal proceedings.

The Supreme Court of India took another important step by accepting the petition filed by PUCL in April 2001. The petition focuses on the general need to uphold the right to food, which follows from the "right to life" enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The case has since become very widely cited nationally and internationally with some landmark 'interim orders' by the Court.

Background

The Main arguments in the PIL are 1) Article 21- the right to life includes the right to food and water as basic humane and fundamental rights; 2) This right is threatened at times of scarcity; 3) It is the duty of the state to prevent scarcity and to immediately provide relief when scarcity arises.

As relief measures the petition demanded immediate release of food stocks for drought relief, provision of work for every affected able-bodied person and PDS quota be raised to 10 Kgs per person. The Supreme Court has accepted the petition and asked the respective states to submit their affidavits.

Another landmark in Indian Jurisprudence
The discussion in the case has been rich and various directions have come out of the Court in for of 'interim orders' applicable for the duration of the proceedings (which are expected to take several years). These included three major directives detailed below.

On September 3, 2001, the Supreme Court asked the state governments to complete the identification of Below Poverty Line (BPL) Population and the Antyodaya Population (the poorest of the poor, consisting approximately of the bottom 4% of the population) and issuing the identified people with cards indicating the same. This is a very significant step since being identified as BPL is often a prerequisite for the poor to enjoy the benefits of many food and other schemes that contribute to the basic needs. The importance of the order can be seen from the fact that the identification had not happened even in the national capital! This process has since been more or less completed.

On 28 November 2001, the court passed a significant "interim order". This interim order has three significant components: (1) it converts the benefits of eight nutrition-related programmes (such as the "public distribution system" and the "integrated child development scheme") into legal entitlements; (2) it directs the state and central governments to adopt specific measures to ensure public awareness and transparency of these programmes; and (3) it directs all state governments to begin cooked mid-day meals for all children in government and government-assisted schools within six months.

On May 8, 2002, an interim order was passed that deals with various aspects of governance and implementation of the food and employment schemes. (1) The order directs the States not to divert central funds meant for food and employment schemes for other purposes. (2) The Gram Sabha i.e. the village councils have been authorised to conduct social audits over all food and employment schemes implemented in their area. (3) Two reputed individuals have been appointed as commissioners who are authorised to monitor the implementation of the schemes and redress complaints arising therein on behalf of the court.

The details of each hearing and the resultant orders are available online. To read the summary of proceedings click here.

Employment for the Able and Food Entailments for the Destitute

As a general principle, the Support Group of the campaign is pressing for a right to employment for all able-bodied people and direct food entitlement for the destitute. Towards these, an application has been made on the right to employment to the Supreme Court. This has bee accepted and is being heard. Another application for direct food entitlements to the destitute will be made in July 2002.

Expanding the Employment Guarantee Scheme through the country

An application has been made to the Supreme Court arguing that the Maharashtra's successful Employment Guarantee Scheme should be expanded through the country. The scheme guarantees unskilled manual labour for any able bodied person who presents himself or herself for work. Each person is entitled to up to 100 days of employment. The greatest success of the scheme lies in the selection of the right beneficiaries. The scheme does not exclude anyone from presenting for work. Thus the problem of excluding the eligible person is greatly reduced. Typically only families in need opt for the unskilled manual labour that the scheme promises. Thus the process of 'self-selection' weeds out richer households wanting to enjoy the benefits of a scheme. Many studies have documented a record of a very high proportion correct selection of beneficiaries in the EGS.

The Supreme Court has asked the respondents to reply to this application. The states have begun filing their applications and the hearings are going on.

A social security system for the destitute
Some of the most vulnerable people to hunger are the destitute including widows & old without family support, and physically and mentally disabled. These are people who would find it difficult to find an employment especially when the going gets tough. They would not be able to avail of employment opportunities even if employment were to become a right. To these people, we are arguing for having direct food entitlement as a right.

A survey was conducted by the Right to Food Campaign along with Delhi School of Economics and ActionAid India to examine the functioning of the Antyodaya Anna Yojana. This is a scheme for the 'poorest of the poor' that has been functioning well. The selection of beneficiaries has been handled by the gram sabhas and the degree of right households getting the cards seems to be high.

An application is being prepared arguing for a scheme that gives direct food entitlement for the destitute. The scheme should be universal in nature (covering all destitute, as are defined). We are arguing for the adoption of many of the features of the AAY in this scheme.

Top