Summary
The Court recognised that Article 21’s right to life with human dignity includes a right to food, and noted the National Food Security Act’s rights-based framework and related welfare schemes. It declined to direct States and Union Territories to adopt community kitchens, leaving them free to consider other welfare schemes permitted by the Act.
Issues
- Whether Article 32 should be used to direct States and Union Territories to formulate and implement a community-kitchens scheme to address hunger, malnutrition and starvation.
- Whether the Court should prescribe community kitchens as a policy measure where the National Food Security Act and other food-security schemes are already in force.
Provisions considered
- Articles 21 and 47, Constitution of IndiaThe right to life with human dignity under Article 21 includes the right to food and other basic necessities. Article 47 identifies raising nutrition and living standards and improving public health as primary duties of the State. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- Statutory food and nutritional security framework, National Food Security Act, 2013The Act adopts a rights-based, life-cycle approach to food security and provides entitlements and grievance mechanisms, alongside schemes for food distribution, meals, nutrition and maternity benefits. In light of this framework and the schemes implemented by the governments, the Court declined to mandate community kitchens. (¶¶ 6, 7, 9)
Held
- Article 21’s right to life with human dignity includes the right to food and other basic necessities. The National Food Security Act provides a rights-based framework for food and nutritional security, including targeted distribution, meals, child and maternal nutrition entitlements, monitoring and grievance redressal. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7)
- Courts have a limited role in reviewing policy and cannot direct the executive to adopt a particular scheme merely because another option may be considered better or wiser. Judicial review concerns legality, not the comparative wisdom of policy choices. (¶ 8)
- Given the statutory framework and existing Union and State schemes, the Court declined to direct implementation of community kitchens. It left open to States and Union Territories the option to explore other welfare schemes permissible under the National Food Security Act; it did not decide whether community kitchens would be a better alternative. (¶¶ 7, 9)
Result
Writ petition disposed of without directing States or Union Territories to implement community kitchens. They remained free to explore other welfare schemes permissible under the National Food Security Act.