Summary
A PIL challenged continued closure of Anganwadi centres during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court treated nutrition as a statutory entitlement and part of health and dignified life. It directed decisions to reopen centres outside containment zones by 31 January 2021, subject to State Disaster Management Authority directions, while keeping containment-zone centres closed. States and Union Territories had to meet statutory nutritional standards and establish monitoring and district complaint mechanisms.
Issues
- Whether continued Anganwadi closure was justified after the Union’s November 2020 reopening guidance.
- What obligations arose regarding nutritional standards, delivery, supervision and grievance redress.
Provisions considered
- Sections 4, 5 and 6; Schedule II, National Food Security Act, 2013Nutrition entitlements and specified standards bind the Centre and States; administrative schemes must deliver actual statutory benefits. (¶¶ 4–8, 18–19, 30–35)
- Articles 21 and 47, Constitution of IndiaAdequate nutrition underlies health and dignified life; raising nutrition and improving public health are primary State duties. (¶¶ 2, 18–19, 33)
Held
- The Act gives statutory recognition to Anganwadi services and creates nutritional entitlements for pregnant women, lactating mothers and children, including malnourished children. Inadequate nutritious food affects health and dignified life protected by Article 21. (¶¶ 4–8, 17–19)
- The November 2020 advice for vulnerable persons to remain home except for essential and health purposes did not prohibit Anganwadi reopening: these are essential services. States could act under the 11 November 2020 guidance without awaiting another general Union permission. (¶ 21–28)
- States and Union Territories yet to reopen had to take decisions by 31 January 2021 for centres outside containment zones. Continued closure outside such zones required directions from the State Disaster Management Authority; centres within containment zones were to remain closed while containment continued. These were directions in the prevailing pandemic circumstances. (¶ 34–35)
- Nutritional support had to meet Schedule II standards. States and Union Territories were required to monitor and supervise actual delivery, issue necessary orders and put a complaint-redress mechanism in place in each district. (¶ 30–35)
Result
Writ petition allowed with reopening, nutritional-compliance, supervision and district grievance-redress directions; parties to bear their own costs.