![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/JournalAd-Sample-Our-Politics-Relations-PB.gif"})
![Banner advert for Taylor & Francis Editing Services]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110755/JournalAd_Announce_Editing_Services_Regional_English_SW.jpg"})
Despite concerted efforts by civil society organizations and judicial activism on the right to food, India remains home to the largest number of undernourished people in the world. This article critically examines two sets of public interest litigation cases where the Indian courts have actively intervened to address the problem of food insecurity. What has been the nature and extent of judicial activism on hunger in India? And what have been the political and administrative responses to such interventions by the courts? I argue that although judicial activism has usefully established the right to food in India, and clarified the corresponding duties of the government at both state and central levels, the court orders have been issued with no real enforcement power behind them. The institutions of government must be better geared towards addressing chronic undernutrition and vulnerability to starvation. The emphasis should be to correctly diagnose the problem of hunger as early on in the process as possible and thereafter undertake a rapid response rather than simply reacting to sensational and visible crises.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Maren Aase, Baard A. Andreassen, Vibeke Kieding Banik, Francis Fukuyama, Erik G. Jensen, George Kent, Harsh Mander, Joshua Ka Ho Mok, Olivier Rubin and Arjun Sengupta for stimulating discussions and insightful comments. The usual disclaimer applies.
Notes
1. The number of undernourished people increased from 172 million in 1990–1992 to 237 million in 2005–2007. For further details, see FAO (2010). According to Swaminathan Research Foundation (2008), between 22 and 30% of Indian children are born with low birth weight and 40% of children under 3 years of age are underweight whereas 45% are stunted. Moreover, 36% of adult women and 34% of adult men suffer from chronic energy deficiency.
2. In addition to six justiciable fundamental rights, the constitution, in Section IV, provides for Directive Principles of State Policy that although are not enforceable in court, ‘the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws’ (Article 37).
3. Robinson (2009, p. 20) argues that such views perhaps underestimate the responsiveness of lower courts to daily ground realities and overestimate the ‘competence or trustworthiness’ of the higher courts.
4. Writ Petition (civil) 196 of 2001, submitted in April 2001.
5. ‘PUCL petitions Supreme Court on starvation deaths’, PUCL Bulletin, July 2001, http://www.pucl.org/reports/Rajasthan/2001/starvation_death.htm [Accessed 10 September 2010].
6. Interim order, Supreme Court, 29 October 2002.
7. The case is technically known as PUCL vs. Union of India and others (Writ Petition [Civil] No. 196 of 2001).
8. Interim order, Supreme Court, 20 August 2001.
9. The order focused on the PDS, Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY), National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education (popularly known as ‘Mid-Day Meal Scheme’ (MDMS)), ICDS, Annapurna scheme, National Old Age Pension Scheme (NOAPS), National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS) and National Family Benefit Scheme (NFBS). Although the court did not specifically mention the Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana (SGRY), it became the focus of the next interim order, issued by the Supreme Court on 8 May 2002.
10. The term has been used by the right to food campaign and the commissioners appointed by the court.
11. On 29 October 2002, the court ordered that chief secretaries (as heads of state-level civil services), were responsible for the overall implementation of the judicial orders and would be held accountable (personally in case of instances of starvation deaths) for failure to implement the court's orders within their respective states. With respect to the central government, and depending on whether a specific ministry or department is the focus of an order or the central government in general, the court decided to hold the secretary of the relevant department/ministry and the Attorney General (as a representative of the government), as accountable (Birchfield and Corsi 2010, p. 700, note 41).
12. Interim order, Supreme Court, 8 May 2002.
13. Ibid., 17 September 2001.
14. Ibid., 29 October 2002.
15. Ibid., 27 April 2004.
16. The PDS and the ICDS are widely recognized to be two of the world's most expensive and ambitious social security programmes.
17. Interim order, Supreme Court, 28 November 2001.
18. Ibid., 8 May 2002.
19. Ibid., 2 May 2003.
20. Ibid., 2 May 2003. Similar provisions regarding the identification of beneficiaries were ordered in November 2001 for the National Old Age Pension Scheme (NOAPS) and the Annapurna Scheme. The court further ordered the implementation of the National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS) and the National Family Benefit Scheme (NFBS). Moreover, state-owned television and radio channels were directed to ‘publicise various Schemes and this order’ and the Chief Secretaries of each of the States and Union Territories were directed ‘to ensure compliance’ of this order (Interim order, Supreme Court, 28 November 2001).
21. Interim order, Supreme Court, 28 November 2001.
22. Ibid., 20 April 2004.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Interim order, Supreme Court, 28 November, 2001.
29. Ibid., 7 October 2004.
30. Ibid., 29 April 2004.
31. Ibid., 7 October 2004.
32. See http://www.sccommissioners.org/courtorders#icds and the August 2007 Report on the ICDS by the Commissioners, http://www.sccommissioners.org/pdfs/comreports/icdsreportaugust2007.pdf [Accessed 9 October 2010].
33. See http://www.sccommissioners.org/courtorders#mdm [Accessed 9 September 2010].
34. Eight Report of the Commissioners of the Supreme Court (2008, p. 4), available at http://www.sccommissioners.org/documents/download/127 [Accessed 10 September 2010].
35. Ibid., p. 6.
36. This section draws heavily on Banik (2007, chapter 5).
37. PIL Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12847 of 1985, Kishan Pattnayak and Another vs. the state of Orissa, Paragraph 1 (quoted in Currie 1998, p. 423).
38. Ibid.
39. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1081 of 1987, the Indian People's Front through its Chairman, Nagbhushan Patnaik vs. State of Orissa.
40. Kapil Narayan Tiwari, Interview, Khariar, 9 February 1999.
41. Order, Supreme Court of India 1989, Paragraph 7.
42. Case No. 3517/88 filed on 17 October 1988, Bhawani Mund vs. State of Orissa.
43. Case No. 525/89 filed in 1989, A. C. Pradhan vs. State of Orissa.
44. Referred in ‘Orissa HC asks Centre, State to prove “starvation deaths” ’, The Statesman, 22 November 1998; ‘Probe starvation deaths: HC’, The Indian Express, 22 November 1998; ‘HC asks government to probe starvation deaths’, The Asian Age, 22 November 1998.
45. Quoted in an article in Utkal Age, 18 January 2001.
46. Cited in ‘NHRC notice to Orissa govt on hunger deaths’, The Times of India, 10 September 2001; ‘NHRC issues notice to Orissa government on starvation deaths’, 29 August 2001, http://www.nhrc.nic.in [Accessed 01 June 2007]
47. The NREGA's focus is enhancing the livelihood security of people in rural areas by guaranteeing adult members of a rural household 100 days of employment in a financial year to undertake unskilled manual work. See http://www.nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx [Accessed 10 October 2010].
48. Two years after its initial landmark ruling, the court offered the following justification for its intervention: ‘The anxiety of the Court is to see that the poor and 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 implementation are of no use’ (Interim order, Supreme Court, 2 May 2003).
49. Chief Justice Balakrishnan's address in the Kerala Legislative Assembly on 26 April 2008, cited in Robinson (2009, pp. 16–17).
50. Justice Katju, in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club vs. Chander Hass (6 December 2007), cited by Robinson (2009, p. 49).