1. In this petition that was filed little more than two years back various issues have been raised, many of which may have a direct and important relevance to the very existence of poor people; their right to life and the right to food of those who can ill-afford to provide for their families two meals a day. Their misfortune becomes further grave during the times of famine and drought.
2. The petitioner has sought directions for enforcement of the Famine Code. The petitioner seeks immediate release of surplus foodgrains lying in the stocks of the Union of India for the drought-affected areas. Directions are also sought requiring the Government to frame fresh schemes of public distribution for scientific and reasonable distribution of foodgrains. In order that any meaningful and immediate relief is given by the Central Government and the State Governments without any delay, various applications have been filed by the petitioner.
3. Considering the importance of the matter particularly in relation to those who are below poverty line (BPL) an order was made by this Court on 3-3-2003 requiring the respondents to file replies to the applications and place on record the requisite material, while adjourning the case to 8-4-2003. In respect of the directions that the Central Government shall formulate the scheme to extend the benefits of the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) to destitute sections of the population, the learned Attorney General stated on the last date of hearing which are on 3-3-2003 that for the Budget for the year 2003-2004 a provision has been made for it. Despite the order of this Court the document has not been placed on record. The approach of the Government is more distressing since this matter which was to come up on 8-4-2003, has come up today after nearly four weeks of the scheduled date but neither the documents have been filed nor have other aspects required to be dealt with in the last order been adverted to.
4. In IA No.25 one of the grievances that has been made is that names of various persons have been removed from BPL arbitrarily. In IA No.26 it has been highlighted that the allocation made for supply of grain in lieu of the labour of BPL family has been recommended to be reduced from 10 kg per day per household to 5 kg and for 10 days in every month till June 2003. In terms of the last order the specific instructions were required to be obtained on the relevant schemes mentioned in IA No.26 including in the matter of reduction of supply of the grain and the number of days. In IA No.24 directions sought against the Union of India are to release 20 million tonnes of foodgrain, at the very minimum, free of cost every year for food-for-work programmes besides other reliefs. Response from the Government was sought within three weeks.
5. Declining request for filing of replies we have heard the learned counsel since it is necessary to consider issuing certain directions without any further delay with a view to provide some ad hoc interim relief to a class which deserves a sympathetic approach. We have heard Mr Colin Gonsalves, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India, besides Mr B.B. Singh for the State of Bihar, Mr Ashok Srivastava for the State of U.P. and Ms Indra Sawhney for Food Corporation of India.
6. This Court in various orders passed in the last two years has expressed its deep concern and it has been observed, in one of the orders, that what is of utmost importance is 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 food for them. In case of famine, there may be shortage of food, but here the situation is that amongst plenty there is scarcity. Plenty of food is available, but distribution of the same amongst the very poor and the destitute is scarce and non-existent leading to malnutrition, starvation and other related problems. The anxiety of the Court is to see that poor and the destitute and the weaker sections of the society do not suffer from hunger and starvation. The prevention of the same is one of the prime responsibilities of the Government – whether Central or the State. Mere schemes without any implementation are of no use. What is important is that the food must reach the hungry.
7. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects for every citizen a right to live with human dignity. Would the very existence of life of those families which are below poverty line not come under danger for want of appropriate schemes and implementation thereof, to provide requisite aid to such families Reference can also be made to Article 47 which inter alia provides that 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. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the view that for the time being for the months of May, June and July 2003, it is necessary to issue certain directions so that some temporary relief is available to those, who deserve it the most.
8. Our attention has been drawn to the Famine Code (Annexure P –VIII). That Famine Code, we are informed, is the one formulated by the State of Rajasthan and similar codes have been formulated by other States. A perusal of this Famine Code shows that first three chapters deal with the steps to be taken as preventive measure before the famine and drought and Chapter IV onwards deal with declaration of distress and commencement of relief setting out in detail the reliefs and the officers responsible therefor. One of the reliefs claimed in the petition is for enforcement of the Famine Code.
9. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the Famine Codes were formulated long time back and many of the aspects have been dealt with under various schemes that have been formulated later like Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana (SGRY). This should not present any difficulty in implementing the Famine Code for the time being. Under the circumstances, we direct the implementation of the Famine Code for the period May, June and July 2003 as and when and where situation may call for it, subject to the condition that if in subsequent schemes the relief to be provided and preventive measures to be undertaken, during famine and drought, are better than the one stipulated by the Famine Code, the same may be implemented instead of the Famine Code.
10. The next aspect pertains to food for work. We have been taken through the Employment Assurance Scheme of the Government of India. Though the same stands merged into SGRY, but it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the reliefs under SGRY, instead of improvement, have since been reduced. SGRY provides for an outlay of only Rs 5000 crores and 5 million tonnes of free grain. It was pointed out that as far as the guarantee of employment is concerned, in the Employment Assurance Scheme, it was 100 days, whereas according to SGRY, it is 15 days and rather 10 days according to the States and at the most 20 days which is according to the Union of India.
11. Our attention has also been drawn to the report of the High-Level Committee on Long-Term Grain Policy, July 2002. A detailed reference to the report has been made in IA No.25. That Committee was constituted by the Department of Food and Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Food and Public Distribution, Union of India. In the summary and recommendation the report inter alia states that an important social and security measure in the context is provision of employment on public works. While a food component can and should be part of such employment generation in the short run or in periods of local food shortages in the long run, employment generation should be distinct from the food-delivery system. This should not, however, undermine the importance of employment and income generation in eliminating hunger and malnutrition.
12. The report further states that no long-run policy can be effective unless present imbalances, specifically the large excess holding of public stocks, are corrected. For the adjustment of stocks, the report has outlined a two-year plan of action which includes immediate steps to lower procurement inflows on the one hand, and to raise outflows, on the other hand, by several means including a large food-for-work programme, a revitalised universal PDS and other grain-based welfare schemes. It has also recommended a major food-based employment programme for the short run. In ultimate, the recommendation of the said Committee is that the present SGRY Scheme should be expanded and at least doubled (emphasis supplied). It says that this implies doubling grain allocation from 5 to 10 million tonnes, and also an increase in the cash allocation to the States by at least Rs 5000 crores.
13. The prayer of the petitioner, in fact, is for allocation of 20 million tonnes though, according to it, the requirement is of 40 million tonnes. The High-Level Committee was appointed by the Government of India. It gave its report in July 2002. Ten months have passed. We do not know what consideration the report has received if at all it has been considered by the Government. We may also note that the report has further mentioned that currently, about half of the food subsidy is being spent on holding stocks in excess of the buffer stock levels necessary for food security. As these stocks are reduced to normal levels, very large fiscal resources of around Rs 10,000 crores annually will become available.
14. While directing the Government of India to place on record by 8-8-2003, the consideration bestowed on the report of the Committee and the decision, if any, we direct that on pro rata basis, the recommendation that the present SGRY Scheme should be expanded, at least doubled be implemented, both in regard to allocation of foodgrain as also cash, for the months of May, June and July. The State Governments shall lift those allocations and ensure that the same reach those for whom they are meant. In case, however, after considering the response of the Union of India, we hold that the allocations do not deserve to be doubled as recommended, the question of adjustment being made for the future supplies on the basis of the allocations in terms of SGRY can be considered.
15. Further, it is necessary to issue immediate directions to evolve a system whereby eligible BPL families, which may not be on the BPL list, are so included as also regarding the ration shops and other outlets remaining open and giving deliveries of foodgrain to those, who are on the list and hold the requisite cards. For the present, we are not going into the question whether only 41% of the poorest households are on the BPL list.
16. We may note that in May last year an order was passed that the respondents shall ensure that the ration shops remain open throughout the month during fixed hours and the details of which shall be displayed on the notice board. To facilities the supply of the grain, we issue the following directions:
16.1. Licensees, who
16.2. Permit the BPL households to buy the ration in instalments.(a) do not keep their shops open throughout the month during the stipulated period,
(b) fail to provide grain to the BPL families strictly at BPL rates and no higher,
(c) keep the cards of BPL households with them,
(d) make false entries in the BPL cards,
(e) engage in blackmarketing or siphoning away of grains to the open market and hand over such ration shops to such other person/organisations.shallmake themselves liable for cancellation of their licences. The authorities/functionaries concerned would not show any laxity on the subject.
16.3. Wide publicity shall be given so as to make the BPL families aware of their entitlement to foodgrains.
17. What was observed in the order dated 23-7-2001 in regard to the making available of food to the aged, infirm, disabled, etc. has already been noticed hereinbefore. According to the figures supplied by the petitioner, approximately 1.5 crore persons are eligible to get Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) card. We direct the Government of India to place on AAY category the following groups of persons:
(1) aged, infirm, disabled, destitute men and women, pregnant and lactating women, destitute women;
(2) widows and other single women with no regular support;
(3) old persons (aged 60 or above) with no regular support and no assured means of subsistence;
(4) households with a disabled adult and assured means of subsistence;
(5) households where due to old age, lack of physical or mental fitness, social customs, need to care for a disabled, or other reasons, no adult member is available to engage in gainful employment outside the house; and
(6) primitive tribes.
What we have stated above in regard to BPL cardholders for effective supply of grains to them, would equally apply to those, who are on the AAY list.
18. Regarding midday meal, 28-11-2001, this Court directed the State Governments/Union Territories to implement the Mid-Day Meal Scheme (MDMS) by providing every child in every government and government-assisted primary school with a prepared midday meal with a minimum content of 300 calories and 8-12 gm of protein each day of school for a minimum of 200 days. It was further directed that those Governments which provide dry rations instead of cooked meals, within three months start providing cooked meals in all government and government-aided primary schools in all (sic) half the districts of the State (in order of poverty) and must within a further period of three months extend the provision of cooked meals to the remaining parts of the State. Some States in implementation of the said directions are supplying cooked midday meal to the students.
19. We are, however, told that despite the fact that 11/2 years have passed, some of the States have not even made a beginning. Particular reference has been made to the States of Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh. It is not in dispute that in those three States even beginning has not been made whereas some of the other States are fully implementing directions for supply of cooked midday meal. The counsel for Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand could not give any satisfactory reason for non-implementation. No reply or affidavit was filed by the said States.
20. Insofar as the State of Bihar is concerned, Mr B.B. Singh has drawn our attention to the affidavit filed by the Secretary and Relief Commissioner, Relief and Rehabilitation Department, Government of Bihar, inter alia stating that the State Government proposes to implement this Scheme in a few blocks on a pilot basis through panchayats, pending settlement of the issue regarding funding of conversion cost and to establish the capacity of the Panchayat Raj institutions to supply hygienic cooked meals to all eligible students on a regular basis, without compromising on teaching activities. The affidavit could not be more vague than what it is. When they propose to start, in how many districts they propose to start, what scheme has been formulated and every other conceivable detail is missing from the affidavit. We are told that there are thirty-eight districts in the State of Bihar. For the present, we direct the said State to implement the cooked Midday Meal Scheme in terms of the directions of this Court in at least ten districts, which may be most poor according to the State’s perception.
21. We also direct the States of Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and other States to make a meaningful beginning of the cooked Mid-Day Meal Scheme in at least 25% of the districts, which may be most poor.
22. By order dated 8-5-2002 Dr N.C. Saxena, former Planning Secretary, Government of India and Mr S.R. Shankaran, former Secretary, Rural Development, Government of India were appointed to function as Commissioners of this Court for the purpose of looking into any grievance that may persist after the grievance-resolution procedure has been exhausted. In subsequent orders, directions have been issued to the Government to fully cooperate with the learned Commissioners. Mr Shankaran has said to have written a letter to the Government expressing personal difficulty in functioning as Commissioner on account of ill-health. Mr Gonsalves states that he has recovered and now is in a position to so function. We would, therefore, request Mr Shankaran to start functioning as Commissioner with Dr Saxena in terms of the orders already passed.
23. The copies of the order shall be sent to the Chief Secretaries of all the States/Union Territories. The State Governments/Union Territories are directed to file affidavits showing the compliance and extent thereof. The affidavits may be filed on or before 8-8-2003. The Union of India may also file its affidavit(s) by the same date. For further consideration the matter shall be placed on 19-8-2003.
