Human Rights

Tutorial: III - Case Study

P.U.C.L v. Union of India And Ors.
Right to Food

Submitted by: Amardeep Mathur

Class: B.B.A LLB IV year

Roll Number: 33
Introduction:

The Heads of State and Government gathered in Rome at the World Food Summit
at the invitation of FAO, reaffirmed on November 13 1996 the right of everyone to
have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food
and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger. They considered it
intolerable that more than 800 million people throughout the world, and
particularly in developing countries, do not have enough food to meet their basic
nutritional needs, and pledged their political will and their common and national
commitment to achieving food security for all and to an ongoing effort to eradicate
hunger in all countries. They formally renewed their commitment to the right to
adequate food and recommended that the content of this right be defined more
clearly and ways to implement it be identified.

Right to Food:

According to UDHR Article 25(1), "everyone has the right to a standard of living
adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food,
clothing, housing...". Under ICESCR Article 11, the States Parties "recognize the
right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family,
including adequate food, clothing and housing...". In paragraph 2 of the same
article, the States Parties to the Covenant recognize the fundamental right of
everyone to be free from hunger and list measures to be taken individually and
through international cooperation in order to bring hunger to an end.

Under CRC Article 27, "States Parties recognize the right of every child to a
standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and
social development".

Case: PUCL v. Union Of India 2007 (12) SCC 135

Background:

Article 21 of the constitution of India which provides for right to life encapsulates
various sacrosanct rights in it. One such right is right to food and livelihood.
However this case presents a scenario where there was a direct violation of this
article. Following a number of starvation deaths in the State of Rajasthan, the
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) filed a writ petition on behalf of the
impoverished, who were being deprived of the required employment and food
relief mandated by the Rajasthan Famine Code of 1962. They raised two fold
contentions. Firstly, whether article 21 covers right to food and thus entrusting the
government with this duty? And when thousands were dying due to drought then
why the government did not distribute the food and instead let it rot in the
godowns. In order to deal with these issues the Supreme Court had to deal with a
no. of other fields like the National Food Security Act, Public Distribution System,
Integrated Child Development Scheme, Mid-day Meal scheme. Looking at the
wide ambit of this case and the pronouncements on these fields this case is
considered as a landmark.”

The Questions Raised

The PIL by Advocate Colin Gonsalves and his team raises 3 pertinent questions
and asks for the Supreme Court’s opinion on matters regarding the right to food in
India. The first and foremost concern raised is about the food grains rotting in the
Government godowns when thousands still die in our country from starvation[5]. It
asks the Supreme Court whether Article 21, which bestows the right to life and
liberty, encompasses the right to food. The final question poses whether the right to
food meant that the government has a duty to provide food to the people affected
by drought.

The Relevant Sections

The relevant Articles of the Constitution are as follows:

Article 21: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.”

Article 39(a): “The State shall… direct its policy towards securing that the
citizen, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of
livelihood…”

Article 47: “The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the
standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its
primary duties…”

Article 32(1): “The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings
for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
At the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has continually sought to establish and fulfil a constitutional
right to food by transforming government food security schemes into
constitutionally protected legal entitlements.

Regular hearings on this case has been held since April, 2001 and this has received
much attention; both at home and abroad. Although the Court is yet to announce its
final judgement on the matter, it has issued various interim orders. Among these
orders is the order to the government to (1) introduce cooked mid-day meals in all
primary schools, (2) provide 35 kgs of grain per month at highly subsidised prices
to 15 million destitute households under the Antyodaya component of the PDS, (3)
double resource allocations for Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojna (India’s largest
rural employment program at that time, now superseded by the Employment
Guarantee Act), and (4) universalise the Integrated Child Development Services
(ICDS).

Various interims were passed directing authorities to see that food is provided to
the aged, infirm, disabled, destitute women, destitute men who are in danger of
starvation, pregnant and lactating women and destitute children, especially in cases
where they or members of their family do not have sufficient funds to provide for
them.

In August 2001, over concerns about starvation deaths in some states, the Supreme
Court observed that it was the primary responsibility of the Central and State
Governments to ensure that the food grains overflowing in FCI godowns reached
the starving people and not wasted by being dumped in the sea or eaten by rats. In
September, the Supreme Court has directed 16 states, which had not identified the
people below the poverty line (BPL) to do so within two weeks to enable the
governments to distribute food to them under the Public Distribution System
(PDS). The November, 2001, interim order directed all state governments to
introduce cooked mid-day meals in primary schools within six months of the order.
These hearings have led to a larger ‘right to food campaign’ which has thus far
focused on the implementation of Supreme Court orders regarding the right to food
case.

This case of PUCL is a clear representation of how the citizens of a democratic

political system can hold the Government responsible for the non-performance of
its duties and obligations. In this case, the main object sought to be observed is to
alleviate the hunger of the masses of impoverished citizens who are suffering from
chronic starvation. The Supreme Court seeks to achieve this by explicitly
establishing a constitutional human right to food and determining a basic
nutritional food for the poor.
The Court in this case has not just tried to justify Right to Food by bringing it
under Article 21, but by also linking it to Article 39 (a)[16] and Article 47[17], and
although these two Articles are not by itself enforceable in the Court, they can be
applied as an expression of the fundamental right to life.

Since the beginning of this case, the Court has reconfigured specific grains and
supplemental nutrients for India’s poor. It has also clearly articulated how these
government schemes are to be implemented and identified which public officials to
hold accountable in the event of non-compliance.

Significance of the case

This is a legally and politically important case and is one of the longest running
mandamus cases of its kind. It has continued to have an increasingly positive effect
in the lives of the poor and the hungry. This case has helped in asserting the right
to food as a fundamental right under Article 21, which has proved to be a very
valuable instrument in holding the state answerable and reduced the State’s
freedom to cut down on programs related to right to food.

According to one of the principal lawyers on the case, the Supreme Court forced
the government to increase its budget and spending with regards to programs
related to right to food ~ a feat that no other court in the world has managed

Conclusion:

The Human Right to Food

The right to food guarantees freedom from hunger and access to safe and nutritious
food. Several key human rights principles are fundamental to guaranteeing the
right to food:

Availability: Food should be available in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy

the dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable
within a given culture.

Accessibility: Food should be physically and economically accessible in ways that

do not interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights.

Sustainability: Food should be secure, or accessible, for both present and future
generations.

Non-Discrimination: Any discrimination in access to food, as well as to means

and entitlements for its procurement, on the grounds of race, color, sex, language,
 age, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or
other status constitutes a violation of the right to food.
The right to food is protected in:

 Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights
 Articles 24 & 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child
 Article 11 of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man
In addition, there are United Nations committees (“treaty bodies”) made up of
experts that oversee the implementation of particular human rights treaties. These
committees oversee the treaties by, among other things, receiving government
reports on the implementation of the treaties, making comments to the government
reports, and issuing general comments about the treaties or specific rights
contained therein.