Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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