The Court has Limited Role in Policy Matters; The Court has Limited Role in Policy Matters; Supreme Court of India held in deciding the Writ Petition

While examining the Writ Petition seeking directions against the States and Union Territories to establish a Community Kitchens Scheme to address hunger, malnutrition, and starvation, the Supreme Court of India has declined to mandate the implementation of a Community Kitchens Scheme to combat hunger, malnutrition, and starvation in India.

Though the Court recognized the constitutional obligation to ensure basic sustainability of human life but also acknowledged the existing legal framework and implemented schemes under the National Food Security Act (NFSA). The Court emphasized that it cannot impose a particular policy or scheme on the ground that a better alternative is available., and left it open to States/UTs to explore alternative welfare schemes permissible under the NFSA.

“The NFSA provides a comprehensive approach to food and nutritional security, including the Targeted Public Distribution System, Mid-day Meal Scheme, Integrated Child Development Services, and Maternity Cash Entitlement”

The Supreme Court's decision highlights several key points: *The Court recognized that its role in examining policy matters is limited. The Court cannot examine the correctness, suitability, or appropriateness of a policy. The Court's focus is on the legality of the policy, not its wisdom or soundness. * Existing Legal Framework: The Court acknowledged the existence of a systematic legal framework under the NFSA. This framework includes various schemes and programs aimed at providing food and nutritional security to the population. The Court noted that these schemes address concerns related to hunger, malnutrition, and starvation.

States' Flexibility in Implementing Schemes: The Court recognized that States and UTs have the flexibility to explore alternative welfare schemes permissible under the NFSA. This flexibility allows States and UTs to tailor their approaches to addressing hunger, malnutrition, and starvation based on their specific needs and circumstances.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in conclusion, dismissed the Writ Petition but the Court's decision reflects a balanced approach to addressing hunger, malnutrition, and starvation in India. The Court recognized the constitutional obligation to ensure basic sustainability of human life but also acknowledged the existing legal framework and implemented schemes under the NFSA. The Court's decision allows States and UTs to explore alternative welfare schemes that are permissible under the NFSA, providing them with the flexibility to address the issue in a manner that is most effective for their respective populations.

Dated: 22-02-2-24 ANUN DHAWAN& ORS. VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judge: BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.