CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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.

Latest Legal News