“In a world overflowing with riches, it is a outrageous scandal that more than 852 million people suffer hunger and malnutrition and that every year over 6 million children die of starvation and related causes.
We must take urgent action now”.
With a view to make the right to food as a separate fundamental right of every citizen the Supreme Court in the case of PUCL v. Union of India held that the state’s obligation in this regard include ensuring “that the poor ,the destitute and the weaker section of the society do not suffer from hunger and starvation”. It is therefore imperative to create and enforce legal entitlement and obligations to ensure that every person is assured physical, economic and social access to adequate food with dignity as is necessary to lead an active and healthy life. It is also imperative that no man, woman or child sleeps hungry or is malnourished. This article lay hand to make right to food as a separate fundamental right of every citizen.
An act to ensure dignified economic and social access to adequate food and other requirement of good nutrition for all residents of the country, at all times, in pursuance of their fundamental right to be free from hunger, malnutrition and other deprivation associated with the lack of food. The right to food is not about charity, but about ensuring that all people have the capacity to feed themselves in dignity
In April 2001, people’s Union for civil liberties (PUCL, Rajasthan) filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking legal enforcement of the right to food. The basic argument is that the right to food is an implication of the fundamental “right to life” enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Following on this, Supreme Court hearings on various aspects of the right to food have been held at regular intervals. This “public interest litigation” (PIL) is far from over, and it may take years before Supreme Court pronounces its final “judgment”. But many interim orders have already been passed. Experience shows that these interim orders can be a useful tool for action. First and foremost, this is an opportunity to hold the state accountable. For instance, if starvation deaths are reported in a particular area, or if there is no food in the ration shop, or if the state Government fails to provide cooked mid-day meals in primary schools, the Supreme Court orders can be used to demand prompt action from concerned authorities.
The Supreme Court orders can also be used to help people to understand that they are ‘entitled” to certain forms of public support as a matter of right. For instance, all school-going children are entitled to a nutritious, cooked mid-day meal. Similarly, every hamlet is supposed to have an active “anganwadi” for children under the age of six. If people perceive these facilities as a matter of right, they are more likely to demand them and to insist on adequate quality. In 1987 a report titled “The Right to Food as a Human Right” became the starting point for a series of investigations into the rights contained in the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the ICESCR”). For progressive realisation of Right to food it points out that States have a core obligation to take action to ensure that, at the very least, people under their jurisdiction have access to the minimum essential food that is needed to ensure their freedom from hunger.
The term “food” covers not only solid foods but also the nutritional aspects of drinking water. The realisation of basic rights such as the right to food should be at the centre of a country’s overall development programme. At the same time, people are reduced to poverty and maintained in poverty by human rights violations including the right to food. The vicious cycle is now increasingly recognized. As the CESCR has observed that, “the roots of the problem of hunger and malnutrition are not lack of food but lack of access to available food, inter alia because of poverty, by large segments of the world’s population .”
The supreme court of India in Chameli Singh case held that the fundamental right to life under article 21 of the constitution necessarily incorporates the right to food. In PUCL vs. Union of India and others (writ petition civil 196 of 2001), the Supreme Court further held that the state’s obligation in this regard include ensuring “that the poor and the destitute and the weaker section of the society do not suffer from hunger and starvation”. It is therefore imperative to create and enforce legal entitlement and obligations to ensure that every person is assured physical, economic and social access to adequate food with dignity as is necessary to lead an active and healthy life. It is also imperative that no man, woman or child sleeps hungry or is malnourished.
What is the State of Hunger in the World Today?
The past years were some of the bleakest in human history. Volatile prices have triggered an increase in hunger especially among people from developing and least developed countries. FAO’s latest report, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008 asserts that worldwide there were 923 million undernourished people in 2007, compared to 848 million in 2003–05. In 2008 the number of people suffering from chronic hunger is likely to have increased even further. According to a 2009 statement of the World Bank, the number of undernourished people exceeds now 1 billion. Shockingly, regression, rather than the progressive realization of the right to food, is the motto of the day.
Many of the women, men and children suffering from chronic under nourishment what the FAO calls ‘extreme hunger’. This means that their daily ration of calories is well below the minimum necessary for survival. Many people die on a daily basis from starvation. Malnourishment also heightens vulnerability to other illnesses and almost always has serious physical and mental effects – the lack of brain cell development, inadequate growth. Serious malnutrition can also be hereditary, as many malnourished mothers give birth to malnourished and seriously affected babies.
Is this a legal right?
Yes, it is a legal right because it derives from a Supreme Court order. This order dated 28 November 2001, directs all government and government assisted primary schools to provide cooked midday meals. Thus, children (or their parents) can demand school meals as a matter of right, and enforce this right through Courts if necessary.
“
Hunger is not an issue of charity; it is an issue of justice”.
The right to food can be seen as an implication of the fundamental “right to life “,enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian constitution. Indeed, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated (several times) that the right to life should be interpreted as a right to “live with human dignity”, which includes the right to food and other basic necessities.
The right to food can also be linked with Articles 39(a) and 47 of the constitution. Article 39(a) directs the state to ensure that all citizens have the “right to an adequate means of living”. According to 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 “These two Articles belong to the “Directive Principles of State Policy”, which are not supposed to be enforceable in Court (Article 37(a) and 47 are enforceable in Court as expression of the fundamental right to life). The reading of Article 21 together with Article 39(a) and 47 places the issue of food security in the correct perspective, thus making the Right to Food a guaranteed Fundamental Right which is enforceable by virtue of the constitutional remedy provided under Article 32 of the constitution. Other statutory constitutional institutions like the National Human Rights Commission have also stated: “There is a fundamental right to be free from hunger.
It can enable the government to redeem its pledge to reach true freedom to all, by exiling hunger from every home.
While the Indian Supreme Court has reiterated in several of its decisions that the Right to Life guaranteed in Article 21 of the constitution in its true meaning includes the basic right to food, clothing and shelter .It is indeed surprising that the justifiability of the specific Right to Food as an integral right under Art. 21 had never been articulated or enforced until 2001 .
Prior to the Right to Food petition filed by PUCL in 2001, the only other case concerning specifically the right to food, went up to the Supreme Court in 1986 was the case of Kishen Pattnayak vs. State of Orissa. In this petition, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Supreme Court bringing to the court’s notice the extreme poverty of the people of Kalahandi in Orissa where hundreds were dying due to starvation and where several people were forced to sell their children. The letter prayed that the State Government should be directed to take immediate steps in order to ameliorate this miserable condition of the people of Kalahandi. This was the first case specifically taking up the issue of starvation and lack of food.
In this judgment, the Supreme Court took a very pro-government approach and gave directions to take macro level measures to address the starvation problem such as implementing irrigation projects in the state so as to reduce the drought in the region, measures to ensure fair selling price of paddy and appointing of a Natural Calamities Committee. None of these measures actually directly affected the immediate needs of the petitioner, i.e. to prevent people from dying of hunger. More importantly, the Supreme Court did not recognise the specific Right to Food within this context of starvation.
In Chameli Singh v. State of U.P it was held that right to life guaranteed in any civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. The method in which the constitutional social rights or the DPSP have been enforced or made justiciable by the Supreme Court has been through an expansion of the existing fundamental rights, particularly the Right to Life guaranteed in Article 21. Right from the late 1970s starting from the Maneka Gandhi’s case the Supreme Court started expanding the guarantee of the Right to Life in Article 21 to include within it and recognize a whole gamet of social rights
Other Problems are: In spite of the increase in food subsidy, the overall impact on the poor is still wanting. There has been significant diversion of commodities under the Public Distribution System to the open market. There are also problems in delivery, quality and coordination. However efforts are underway to rectify some of these problems. The Supreme Court Orders in response to the PUCL writ petition and the Campaign on Right to Food have had a positive impact.
Conclusion
The study about this right shows that the root cause of the world hunger is poverty apart from other causes. So it is indeed very essential that to eliminate hunger poverty should be addressed at the first place because even if the availability of food grain is sufficient then also due to lack of purchasing power poor people cannot access to food. The major problem relates to economic access to food. Self-sufficiency has increased at the national level but not at the household level. Though incidences of poverty have declined to some extent, significant regional disparity is visible. There have been changes in the patterns of food consumption as well. Though there has been a decline in malnutrition, nearly half of the rural children still suffer from malnutrition. Provision of safe drinking water has also not been satisfactory, particularly in rural areas.
Another area of problem relating to hunger in India as studied is, ‘export of foodgrains’. Although production of food grain is sufficient but they are being exported resulting in the shortage of food grains in the country itself. Earlier government imported foorgrains but now due to green revolution when there is self sufficiency then also lack of availability is there due to export. So exports should be minimized. The problems encountered in implementing RTF include (i) resource constraints; (ii) problems of governance and lack of political will; (iii) lack of an overall framework for implementation and monitoring; (iv) lack of appropriate indicators and benchmarks for monitoring; (v) difference in nature of challenges in rural and urban areas. Although the main responsibility of realizing RTF lies with the government, it is submitted that the coordination of government with NGOs and other members of the civil society are important. However, NGOs also need to work on the principles of transparency and accountability. Moreover the government should bring reform in PDS for effective realization of this right and open more fair price shops.
Justiciability is essential for the implementation of the right to food to enable people to seek a remedy and accountability if their right to food is violated. Today the right to food is indeed justiciable and can be adjudicated by a court of law but notwithstanding these encouraging developments at the national and international levels, a great deal remains to be done to ensure the justiciability of the right to food.
We should DECLARE “The RIGHT TO FOOD” as the MOST FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF AN INDIAN CITIZEN.
In 1947 our leaders had a SCAPE GOAT in the British to blame for our poverty and HUNGER. Today, we have no GUTS TO ACCEPT THE TRUTH that we have failed to provide our people with proper food. If our Society and Government CANNOT provide food to our people we have no RIGHT TO CELEBRATE “INDEPENDANCE DAY”! We are NOT FREE…. until every Indian is free from the BONDS OF POVERTY AND HUNGER.
“FOR NOW I ASK NO MORE THEN THE JUSTICE OF EATING”.
References:-
WEBSITES REFERRED
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.jstor.org
3. www.books.google.co.in
BOOKS REFERRED
1. ANITA BALACHANDRAN, “MIDDAY MEALS”
2. SUPREME COURT ORDERS ON “RIGHT TO FOOD”, A TOOL FOR ACTION
Declaration
. I hereby declare that the Article furnished above is original to the best of my knowledge.
