UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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