"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Legality of the Policy, Not the Wisdom or Soundness, Subject of Judicial Review: Supreme Court Upholds Autonomy of States in Food Security Measures, Declines Directing Implementation of Community Kitchens

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court, in its judgment on the case of Anun Dhawan & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors., underscored the limited scope of judicial intervention in policy matters, particularly in the context of implementing Community Kitchens to address issues of hunger and malnutrition.

Brief on Legal Point: The petitioners invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, asserting the right to live with human dignity, which includes access to food, and sought a directive for the establishment of Community Kitchens. The Court delved into the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013, highlighting its rights-based approach to ensuring food security, particularly for vulnerable groups.

Facts and Issues: The petition called for more direct governmental action in food security through Community Kitchens. Responses from states and Union Territories showcased existing schemes like Poshan Abhiyan and Mid-Day Meal, aimed at tackling hunger and malnutrition.

Court Assessment: In the judgment delivered by Justice Bela M. Trivedi, the Court observed, "The Constitution of India does not explicitly provide for Right to food, the fundamental Right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution does include Right to live with human dignity and right to food and other basic necessities." While recognizing the existing legal framework under the NFSA and various state-led initiatives, the Court stated, "The Courts do not and cannot examine the correctness, suitability or appropriateness of a policy... Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, would be the subject of judicial review."

Decision: The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition, affirming the legal framework under the NFSA and respecting state autonomy in selecting suitable welfare measures for food security. It refrained from mandating the implementation of Community Kitchens, leaving the decision to the discretion of States and Union Territories.

Date of Decision: February 22, 2024

Anun Dhawan & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.

Similar News