The Right to Food in the “Socialist” Constitution
GLOBAL AFFAIRS, POLITICAL ECONOMY, GOVERNANCE & INSTITUTIONS
Chaifry
8/25/20267 min read
The human right to food can be examined in conjunction with the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In reality, the Supreme Court has clearly stated on several occasions that the right to life must be interpreted as the human right to live with human dignity, which includes the right to food and other basic necessities. According to Magna Carta, justice or human rights shall be granted to every person without any delay and shall not be sold. Judicial interventions and interpretations have expanded the boundaries of this human right to include several other social and economic human rights,
such as the human right to food, the human right to work, and the human right to housing. Without regular nutrition, life is biologically impossible; therefore, the right to food has been widely recognised as a fundamental human right.
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, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. Article 47 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. These two articles form part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which are not regarded as enforceable by the courts under Article 37. However, it is possible to argue that Articles 39(a) and 47 can be enforced by the courts as an expression of the fundamental right to life.
In this connection, two very important cases are the following:
Petition (Civil) No. 42 of 1997 filed in the Supreme Court by the Indian Legal Aid and Advice Council in 1996.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2001 filed in the Supreme Court by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Rajasthan unit, in 2001.
such as the human right to food, the human right to work, and the human right to housing. Without regular nutrition, life is biologically impossible; therefore, the right to food has been widely recognised as a fundamental human right.
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, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. Article 47 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. These two articles form part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which are not regarded as enforceable by the courts under Article 37. However, it is possible to argue that Articles 39(a) and 47 can be enforced by the courts as an expression of the fundamental right to life.
In this connection, two very important cases are the following:
Petition (Civil) No. 42 of 1997 filed in the Supreme Court by the Indian Legal Aid and Advice Council in 1996.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2001 filed in the Supreme Court by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Rajasthan unit, in 2001.
In the middle of 2001, India witnessed a new form of “hunger amidst plenty.” On the one hand, the country’s grain stocks had never been so full. On the other hand, starvation increased in drought-affected and other regions. On the basis of this situation, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Rajasthan unit, filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking enforcement of the “right to food.” Initially, the case was filed against the Government of India, the Food Corporation of India, and six state governments in the specific context of drought relief. Later, it was expanded to include the widespread and persistent hunger that existed, and all states were made respondents from whom replies were sought.
On 23 July 2001 the Court observed: “In our opinion, the most important matter is that food should reach the aged, the disabled and the weak, poor women, poor men who are facing the risk of dying of hunger, pregnant and lactating mothers, and poor children, especially those who themselves or whose families do not have sufficient money to obtain food. In a situation of famine there may be a shortage of food, but here the situation is one of shortage amidst plenty. Food is available in large quantities, yet its distribution among the extremely poor and the destitute is inadequate and sometimes does not take place at all, giving rise to malnutrition, starvation and other related problems.”
In the earlier case, reports of starvation deaths in the Kalahandi, Bolangir and Koraput districts of Odisha had been brought to the notice of the Supreme Court of India. While entertaining the petition, the Supreme Court directed the constitutional body, the National Human Rights Commission, to assess the situation of chronic hunger in that region. Through its hearings and arduous visits to the affected areas, which continued for several years, the Commission made a significant contribution and clarified that destitution and long-term crisis are the marks of starvation, not death alone. It also clarified that starvation is a forcible violation and denial of that fundamental right under which every person has the human right to freedom from hunger.
The legal basis of this petition is very simple and straightforward. Article 21 of the Constitution gives the right to life, and it becomes the duty of the government to protect it. This is a fundamental right. In several earlier cases the Supreme Court has held that the right to life means the right to live with dignity, and that the human right to bread or food is, like several other rights, included in the right to live with dignity. Essentially, this petition argued that the response of the central and state governments to the relief situation, both at the level of policy and implementation, clearly violated this human right. The petition used government and grassroots-level data to establish this point.
Regarding governmental neglect in providing food security, the petition identified two aspects. One is the winding up of the Public Distribution System (ration system) by the government. The failure of the ration system is exposed at several levels. Its facility has been limited only to people living below the poverty line.
The second point of the petition concerns the deficiencies in the government’s relief works. Several states have famine codes on the basis of which relief works are undertaken. In a situation of drought it becomes mandatory to apply them. According to these codes, it is necessary that “every such person who comes for relief work should be given work.” Contrary to this, the Rajasthan government adopted a policy of “labour ceiling.” Under this, according to government figures, only the drought-affected population can get work. The actual level of employment is even lower. News has come from many states that the legally recognised minimum wage is not being paid.
The government places the responsibility for these problems on shortage of funds. The Supreme Court has already stated that the government cannot shift the failure to fulfil constitutional duties onto “shortage of money.” In any case, looking at the overflowing stocks of food, this excuse cannot apply at all. The state government has repeatedly demanded free grain from the central government for relief works but has not received it. However, it is also true that the grain received by the states has often not been fully utilised. This also weakens the position of the state government.
The related articles of the Constitution are as follows:
Article 21: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Article 39(a): The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood.
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.
Article 32: The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
India’s National Food Security Act, 2013: Legislative Recognition of the Constitutional Right
The long judicial struggle for the right to food culminated in the enactment of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (Act No. 20 of 2013), which came into force with effect from 5 July 2013. The Act converts the earlier welfare schemes into statutory legal entitlements and thereby gives legislative shape to the constitutional right to food derived from Article 21 read with Articles 39(a) and 47.
The Act covers up to 75 per cent of the rural population and up to 50 per cent of the urban population. Under the Targeted Public Distribution System, every person belonging to priority households is entitled to five kilograms of foodgrains per person per month at the subsidised prices specified in Schedule I (rice at three rupees per kilogram, wheat at two rupees per kilogram, and coarse grains at one rupee per kilogram). Households covered under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana are entitled to thirty-five kilograms of foodgrains per household per month at the same prices.
Chapter III of the Act provides nutritional support to pregnant women, lactating mothers and children. Pregnant women and lactating mothers are entitled to free meals during pregnancy and for six months after childbirth, as well as a maternity benefit of not less than six thousand rupees. Children up to the age of fourteen years are entitled to age-appropriate free meals through the Integrated Child Development Services and the Mid-Day Meal Scheme (now PM POSHAN).
Section 8 of the Act creates a right to receive food security allowance in cases where the entitled foodgrains or meals are not supplied. The Act also contains provisions on women empowerment (eldest woman of the household to be treated as head for ration card purposes), grievance redressal mechanisms, transparency and accountability, and the obligations of the Central Government, State Governments and local authorities.
To give effect to the Act, the Central Government has framed several rules, including the Food Security (Assistance to State Governments) Rules, 2015; the Food Security Allowance Rules, 2015; the Cash Transfer of Food Subsidy Rules, 2015; and subsequent amendments such as the Food Security (Assistance to State Governments) (Amendment) Rules, 2021 and 2022. State Governments have also framed rules consistent with the central legislation for identification of eligible households, distribution of foodgrains, and grievance redressal. The National Food Security Act thus represents the legislative fulfilment of the constitutional promise of the right to food. It transforms the judicial recognition of the right under Article 21 into a concrete statutory framework with enforceable entitlements, thereby strengthening the architecture of food security as a justiciable human right in India.