Right to Food and Welfare Schemes 

Justice Biplab Kumar Sharma

(Former Judge, Gauhati High Court)

Human life has its own charm, and there is no reason why it should not be enjoyed along with all permissible pleasures. Yet, for millions of Indians, the struggle remains to secure two meals a day. Their entire pursuit in life is simply to satisfy hunger and prolong life a little longer.

In India, a large section of the population continues to live in hunger and deprivation. Many survive on starvation; others are half-fed or malnourished. This stark reality confronts us every day across the country. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees life and personal liberty to all persons. It is well settled by repeated pronouncements of the Supreme Court and various High Courts that the right to life enshrined in Article 21 is not confined to mere existence or survival. It guarantees the right to live with human dignity. Included in it are all those aspects of life that make it meaningful, complete, and worth living.

The issue of life and personal liberty came into sharp focus through the series of orders passed by the Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India & Others (Writ Petition No. 196 of 2001), popularly known as the Right to Food (RTF) case. This landmark public interest litigation was initiated by Mr Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, after witnessing the severe hunger and malnutrition prevalent in villages around Jaipur, Rajasthan.

The petition initially focused on Rajasthan but soon expanded to cover all states and union territories. It drew attention to starvation deaths caused by the failure of public authorities to ensure food distribution, despite overflowing granaries. One of the prayers made was for the enforcement of the old Famine Codes, which were designed to anticipate and prevent food scarcity.

The Supreme Court admitted the petition on 9th May 2001 and issued notices to the government. Observing that “amongst plenty there is scarcity,” the Court directed all States to reopen closed ration shops and ensure regular food supplies. On 20 August 2001, the Court recorded its concern in powerful words: “The anxiety of the Court is to see that the poor and the destitute and the weaker sections of the society do not suffer from hunger and starvation... Mere schemes without any implementation are of no use. What is important is that the food must reach the hungry.”  In a significant order dated 28 November 2001, the Court directed the Union and State Governments to fully comply with the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) by identifying all BPL families, issuing ration cards, and distributing 25 kilograms of food grains per family per month. The Court also ordered all ration shops to remain open throughout the month and display their operating hours.

Subsequent hearings revealed that 16 states and union territories had not even identified Below Poverty Line (BPL) families. The Court directed that this process be completed immediately and that all food grains allotted under Central schemes be lifted and distributed without delay. As the proceedings continued, the focus shifted to corruption in the Public Distribution System (PDS). Reports emerged that food grains were being diverted to private flour mills instead of reaching ration shops. The Court took note of this and sought accountability from both the Centre and the States.

In 2003, the Supreme Court passed another landmark order directing that under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY), categories such as the aged, infirm, destitute men and women, pregnant and lactating women, and widows be given priority. It also issued directions for full compliance with the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, ensuring that every child in every government or government-aided primary school received a prepared meal. However, the Court soon discovered that implementation remained poor. Many states had discontinued welfare schemes such as the National Old Age Pension and the Annapurna Scheme without alternatives. Maternity benefit schemes were virtually non-functional. To ensure transparency, the Court directed that its orders be translated into regional languages and displayed prominently in every village panchayat, school, and fair price shop.

In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 719, the Supreme Court once again noted widespread non-compliance. It ordered operationalisation of Anganwadi Centres and strict implementation of the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS). The Chief Secretaries of several states, including Assam, were directed to personally appear before the court to explain the failures. Data placed before the Court showed the extent of neglect. For example, in Assam, out of 37,082 sanctioned Anganwadi Centres, 11,666 remained non-operational. The Court continued to monitor the case closely, and with the persistence and commitment of Mr Gonsalves, the matter continues to move toward its logical conclusion. The Supreme Court also addressed malnutrition and directed both the Union and State Governments to take concrete measures under ICDS to combat it. Despite such directions, the sad truth remains that funds allocated for welfare schemes are often misused by those in power.

In Assam, misuse of funds is compounded by frequent litigation concerning the implementation of these schemes. Allegations of nepotism and favouritism in the appointment of Anganwadi workers, helpers, and ASHA women have led to numerous court cases. While these cases linger, the centres remain non-operational, depriving beneficiaries of essential services. The result is a never-ending cycle of inefficiency and injustice. Corruption, unfortunately, is woven into the very fabric of our governance. Unless it is rooted out, no amount of litigation or social activism can bring about the changes we desire. From this long journey, one truth emerges: what began as a small initiative in Rajasthan has spread awareness across the nation about the Right to Food and related human rights issues. Credit for this transformation must go to Mr Colin Gonsalves, whose dedication to the cause has made a national impact.

The Preamble to our Constitution resolves to secure justice—social, economic, and political—to all citizens and to ensure equality of status and opportunity. Yet, after seventy-eight years of independence, we continue to hold seminars and workshops to raise awareness about literacy, livelihood, and legal rights. The disparity persists, offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India. One cannot help but wonder why, even after seventy-eight years of independence, the disparity between the privileged and the deprived remains so stark. Why is there this divide?

Let us hope that efforts like those of Mr Gonsalves and others continue with the same zeal. The day we succeed in translating these constitutional ideals into reality will be a true triumph of humanity—and a crown of social justice for our nation.