People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India and Ors

HEADNOTE

The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) filed a petition in 2001 seeking the enforcement of the Famine Code and release of surplus food-grains stocked by India for those affected by drought along with applications to expand the categories of persons qualifying for Below Poverty Line assistance and the release of a minimum of 20 million tons of food-grains under the Food-for-Work Program. The Supreme Court ordered the Union of India to provide the immediate relief sought by the PUCL under the government’s duty to reduce starvation and hunger of impoverished segments of the population.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The petitioner, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), filed a petition in 2001 which sought the enforcement of the Famine Code and release of surplus food-grains stocked by India for those affected by drought. Further applications were filed by the PUCL concerning the arbitrary removal of various persons from the Below Poverty Line (BPL) list and the reduction of recommended grain supply from 10 kg to 5 kg per household and to 10 days per month until June 2003. The PUCL requested that India release a minimum of 20 million tons of food-grains at no cost each year under the Food-for-Work Programs in addition to other relief sought. At the time of the judgment, the Court was awaiting the government’s response to these applications.
The Supreme Court also previously directed the central government of India to extend the benefits of the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY), a government-sponsored subsidized food scheme, to cover greater segments of the impoverished population. Despite the Attorney General’s assurances that a provision was made in the state’s annual budget for the extension of benefits under the AAY, no documents to support these claims were filed with the Court.
Recognizing the necessity to grant interim relief given the current droughts and famines in India, the Court decided to proceed in issuing directions for government action despite the respondent failing to respond to the petitioner’s applications in a timely manner.
RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS
Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Protection of life and personal liberty
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Article 47 of the Constitution of India – Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health
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 and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.

Famine Code of Rajasthan
- First three chapters deal with the steps to be taken as preventive measures before a famine and/or drought occur
- Chapter Four onwards deals with declarations of distress and commencement of relief setting out in detail the reliefs and officers responsible thereof. The Court observed that the prevention of hunger and starvation was a primary responsibility of both central and state governments under Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 pertains to the right to live with human dignity and Article 47 mandates the State to raise “the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties.” The Court found that these articles necessitated an order for the responding state to provide relief to those requiring immediate aid for the months of May to July 2003.
The Court held that the Famine Code should be implemented to provide relief for the months of May to July 2003. Further the Court held that in instances of drought or famine, the Famine Code will be followed unless a more effective scheme could be provided. While the respondent argued that aspects of the Famine Code since its formulation have been dealt with by various schemes, the Court did not find that the existence of such schemes was incompatible with enforcing the Famine Code.
Regarding the issue of the Food-for-Work Program, the Court held that the provisions under the Sampoorna Grain Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) be at least doubled in order to compensate for any reduction in this scheme to provide for Rs. 10000 crore and 10 million tons of free grain for the months of May to July 2003. The Court considered the recommendations of the Report of the High Level Committee on Long-Term Grain Policy from July 2002 (the “Report”) which highlighted that employment on public projects was an important social and security objective and that a food delivery system may be incorporated into an employment generating scheme. The Court made this decision upon considering the government’s lack of response to the Report’s recommendations in the ten months since its publication.
The Court held that it was necessary to ensure that all families eligible for Below Poverty Line (BPL) benefits were included in the BPL system and that ration supply stores remained open to provide food-grains for those on the list and held corresponding BPL cards. To facilitate this objective, the Court issued three directions for guidelines for licensees supplying food-grains, permittance of BPL households to buy rations on instalment, and public awareness campaigns to let BPL families know they are entitled to food-grains. Further, the Court directed the government to expand the categories of people eligible for Antyodaya Anna Yozana (AAY) Cards to include those who are aged, infirmed, disabled, pregnant, and impoverished among others. The BPL guidelines for the supply of grains would equally apply to AAY cardholders.

“…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-existing 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.” (Page 2)

“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.” (Page 2)