A) Abstract / Headnote

This case deals with the petitioners, claiming to be social activists, seeking judicial directions for implementing the concept of community kitchens to alleviate hunger, malnutrition, and starvation. The petitioners invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India, arguing for comprehensive schemes beyond the existing frameworks under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA). The Court held that the current statutory schemes under NFSA sufficiently address the issues of food security through a rights-based approach. It emphasized the limitations of judicial review in policy matters, asserting that courts cannot dictate policy alternatives but only examine their legality. Accordingly, the Court declined to issue additional directions for community kitchens but encouraged States and Union Territories to explore alternative welfare mechanisms within the NFSA framework.

Keywords: Constitution of India, Right to Food, Community Kitchen, Judicial Review, Food Security Act.

B) Case Details

i) Judgment Cause Title
Anun Dhawan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

ii) Case Number
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1103 of 2019

iii) Judgment Date
February 22, 2024

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal

vi) Author
Justice Bela M. Trivedi

vii) Citation
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 812 : 2024 INSC 136

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Constitution of India: Articles 21, 32, and 47
• National Food Security Act, 2013

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case
None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Constitutional Law, Food Security, Public Health, and Welfare Law

C) Introduction and Background of Judgment

The petitioners argued that the right to food is integral to Article 21, which guarantees the right to life with dignity. They highlighted that existing schemes under NFSA were insufficient to address widespread malnutrition and starvation in India. They sought judicial intervention for creating a centralized framework for community kitchens and a National Food Grid. The petition highlighted international goals such as the UN’s objective of eradicating hunger, emphasizing that India has constitutional duties under Article 47 to ensure adequate nutrition and public health improvements.

The respondents, including Union and State Governments, countered by detailing existing schemes like the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana, and the One Nation One Ration Card Scheme. They contended that these measures sufficiently safeguard food security.

D) Facts of the Case

The petitioners claimed systemic failures in food security mechanisms despite NFSA’s implementation. They sought:

1. Judicial direction for implementing community kitchens nationwide.
2. Creation of a National Food Grid beyond the Public Distribution System.
3. Enhanced measures under Article 47 to combat malnutrition and starvation.

Respondents submitted comprehensive affidavits detailing their schemes and policies aimed at combating hunger and malnutrition, asserting that there were no deaths reported due to starvation in recent times. They emphasized the sufficiency of existing welfare measures under the NFSA and associated programs.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Whether judicial intervention is warranted to direct implementation of community kitchens.
2. Whether the NFSA sufficiently addresses food and nutritional security under a rights-based framework.
3. Scope of judicial review in examining policy choices.

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

The petitioners argued that:

1. Right to Food is an implicit component of Article 21 and requires active measures beyond NFSA.
2. Current welfare schemes lack uniformity and fail to cover all vulnerable populations adequately.
3. A centralized National Food Grid and community kitchens are essential to ensure nutritional security and prevent starvation deaths.
4. Courts have the jurisdiction to enforce constitutional mandates under Articles 21 and 47 by directing policy measures.

They relied on the constitutional duty under Article 47, urging the Court to enforce obligations concerning public health and nutrition.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents contended that:

1. The NFSA provides a systematic legal framework for food security through measures like Targeted Public Distribution System, Mid-Day Meals, and cash transfers.
2. Existing schemes like the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana and Poshan Abhiyan are adequately monitored and effective.
3. Judicial review cannot override executive discretion in policy formulation.
4. The lack of starvation deaths evidences the adequacy of welfare measures, negating the need for additional judicial mandates.

Citing Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, the respondents argued that courts cannot evaluate the appropriateness or soundness of policies.

H) Related Legal Provisions

1. Article 21, Constitution of India: Encompasses the right to live with dignity, which includes food security.
2. Article 47, Constitution of India: Obligates the State to improve nutrition and public health.
3. National Food Security Act, 2013: Ensures access to adequate food at affordable prices.

I) Judgment

a. Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that:

1. NFSA, with its rights-based approach, provides a comprehensive framework for food security.
2. Judicial review in policy matters is limited to examining legality, not wisdom or efficiency.
3. Community kitchens are a policy alternative better explored by States rather than enforced through judicial intervention.

b. Obiter Dicta
The Court emphasized that hunger and malnutrition require proactive measures but reiterated the judiciary’s limited role in policy directives.

c. Guidelines

1. States and UTs may explore welfare schemes like community kitchens within the NFSA framework.
2. Governments must ensure robust monitoring mechanisms for existing schemes to prevent malnutrition and starvation.

J) References

a. Important Cases Referred

• Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, (2007) 4 SCC 737

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Constitution of India: Articles 21, 32, and 47
• National Food Security Act, 2013