Dipika Jagatram Sahani v. Union of India
In short. The case involves a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Dipika Jagatram Sahani against the Union of India and others, questioning the closure of Anganwadi Centres across the country due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner argues that these centres are crucial for providing supplementary nutrition to vulnerable groups, including pregnant women, lactating mothers, and children under six years. The Supreme Court directed the reopening of Anganwadi Centres and mandated the provision of necessary nutritional services in accordance with the National Food Security Act, 2013, emphasizing the state's duty to ensure the health and nutrition of its citizens.
Facts
The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, highlighting the adverse effects of the closure of Anganwadi Centres on the nutritional status of children and mothers during the pandemic. The petition cites the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme, which aims to promote holistic development and nutrition for children under six years and their mothers. The petitioner seeks various reliefs, including the reopening of Anganwadi Centres, provision of hot cooked meals, and growth monitoring of children.
Arguments
Petitioner Arguments
The petitioner argues that
- The closure of Anganwadi Centres violates the right to food and nutrition guaranteed under the National Food Security Act, 2013.
- The state has a constitutional obligation under Article 47 to improve nutrition and public health.
- The adverse impact of the pandemic on the nutritional status of children and mothers necessitates immediate action.
The court addressed these arguments by recognizing the importance of Anganwadi Centres in fulfilling the state's obligations and the detrimental effects of their closure on vulnerable populations.
Respondent Arguments
The respondents, representing the Union of India and state governments, likely argued:
- The closure was a necessary public health measure during the pandemic.
- Alternative methods of providing nutrition were being explored or implemented.
The court countered these arguments by emphasizing that the right to food and nutrition cannot be compromised, even in the face of public health concerns, and that the state must find ways to ensure these rights are upheld.
Precedents considered
The court referenced the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India, which established the right to food as a fundamental right and directed the government to implement the ICDS effectively. This precedent underscores the judiciary's role in enforcing the state's obligations towards food security.
Legal principles
The court considered several legal principles, including
- The right to food as an extension of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- The state's duty under Article 47 to raise the level of nutrition and improve public health.
- The provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013, which mandates the provision of nutritional support to vulnerable groups.
Decision and reasoning
Rationale
The court's rationale centered on the constitutional mandate to protect the rights of the most vulnerable populations. It criticized the respondents for failing to provide adequate nutrition during the pandemic and highlighted the need for immediate action to reopen Anganwadi Centres and restore services.
Outcome
The Supreme Court ordered the immediate reopening of Anganwadi Centres and directed the Union and state governments to ensure the provision of nutritional services as per the National Food Security Act, 2013. The court also instructed the monitoring of children's growth and health to address the pandemic's impact.
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces the state's responsibility to ensure food security and nutrition, particularly for vulnerable populations. It highlights the judiciary's proactive role in safeguarding constitutional rights and sets a precedent for future cases concerning public health and welfare.
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)
Find the judgments that followed or distinguished it, with the paragraph relied on in each. Two answers free on WhatsApp, no signup.