Introduction The right to food
campaign is an outgrowth of a "public interest litigation" on the
right to food. This litigation began with a writ petition submitted to the
Supreme Court by People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) in April 2001. The
petition focuses on the general need to uphold the right to food, which follows
from the fundamental "right to life" enshrined in Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution (interpreted in earlier Supreme Court judgements as a right
to live with dignity).
This case, technically known as "PUCL vs
Union of India and others (Writ Petition [Civil] No. 196 of 2001)", is
handled by an advisory group consisting of a few members of PUCL, the Human
Rights Law Network (HRLN) and the right to food campaign. Supreme Court
hearings have been held at regular intervals since April 2001, and the case has
attracted wide national and international attention. Although the judgment is
still awaited, significant "interim orders" have been passed from
time to time. For instance, the Supreme Court has passed orders directing the
Indian government to: (1) introduce cooked
mid-day meals in
all primary schools, (2) provide 35 kgs of grain per month at highly subsidized
prices to 15 million destitute households under the Antyodaya component of
the PDS, (3) double resource allocations
for Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (India's largest rural employment programme
at that time, now superseded by the Rural Employment
Guarantee Act),
and (4) universalize the Integrated
Child Development Services (ICDS). See the list of interim
orders for further
details.
The PUCL petition essentially argues that the
right to food is a fundamental right of all Indian citizens, and demands that
the country's gigantic food stocks (about 50 million tonnes of grain at that
time) should be used without delay to prevent hunger and starvation. The right
to food can be seen as a corollary of the fundamental "right to life"
(Article 21 of the Indian Constitution), in so far as it is impossible to live
without food. As the Supreme Court itself noted in an interim order dated 2 May
2003, "reference can also be made to Article 47 which inter alia provides
that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the
standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among
its primary duties".
The petition highlights two aspects of the
state's negligence in ensuring food security: the breakdown of the public
distribution system (PDS), and the inadequacy of relief programmes in
drought-affected areas. Following on this, it asks the Supreme Court to
intervene, by directing the government to (a) provide immediate open-ended
employment in drought-affected villages, (b) provide unconditional support to
persons unable to work, (c) raise the PDS entitlement per family, and (d)
provide subsidised foodgrain to all families. The petition also requests the
court to order the central government to supply free foodgrain for these
programmes.
Interim applications submitted from time to time by PUCL have further enlarged
and consolidated these demands. The initial petition focused on the drought
situation prevailing at that time, especially in Rajasthan, but the litigation
now has a much broader scope. The main concern is to put in place permanent
arrangements to prevent hunger and starvation. The interim applications
advocate the introduction of a nation-wide "employment guarantee
act", combined with social security arrangements for those who are unable
to work.
For a user-friendly introduction to the right to food case and the Supreme
Court orders, see Supreme
Court Orders on the Right to Food: A Tool for Action. |