On July 21, 2017, the SC severely pulled up governments at the Centre and in the state for their indifference towards hunger and food security. The National Food Security Act, 2013, has met with prolonged political indifference but in response to a dogged legal intervention by the Swaraj Abhiyan, the SC has directed urgent action.
This is the last in a long line of historic orders by the Supreme Court on relief to drought affected persons/districts. Beginning from May last year, there have been five significant orders where the Honorable Court has pointed out the failures of the state and central governments in implementing existing legal provisions which could mitigate the impact of the drought on people as well as has issued directions for additional relief for affected areas. The latest order passed on July 21, 2017, is a strong indictment of the failure of the central and state governments towards fulfilling their obligations in implementing the National Food Security Act.
The Judgement has pointed out that there is an urgent need for the state governments to take this legislation seriously and put in place all the mechanisms required for its implementation in true letter and spirit. On the other hand, the Central government also cannot abdicate all responsibility by placing the blame on the states. “Record indicates that a combined effort, both by Center and States, needs to be taken for effective implementation of the Act especially in the draught affected areas so as to save people from abject poverty and poor quality of life.”
Quotes from SC Order, July 21, 2017
“What use is a law passed by Parliament if State Governments and Union Territories do not implement it at all, let alone implement it in letter and spirit.”
“If the State Governments and Union Territories decide that they do not wish to abide by a law enacted by Parliament for the benefit of the people, perhaps some other solution may have to be found but we hope that no State Government or Union Territory disregards the will of Parliament.”
“A law enacted by Parliament as a part of its social justice obligation must be given its due respect and must be implemented faithfully and sincerely and positively before the end of this year”
In the previous hearing held in March 2017, the Supreme Court had asked Chief Justices of nine states to appear personally before the Court and explain the delays in implementation of the NFSA, especially the provisions related to Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM).The current judgement has been passed after the bench heard all the states and the central government in this regard. The Supreme Court has specifically ordered that the Secretary, Ministry of Food, Government of India must ensure that state governments, by the end of this year:
- Notify rules for GRM under NFSA, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Act
- Appoint State Food Commissions, with independent charge not additional charge being given to existing commissions (unless unavoidable),
- Appoint independent District Grievance Redress officers, who have nothing to do with the implementation of the schemes under the NFSA
- Appoint vigilance committees, and
- Set up a mechanism for conducting social audits
The SC Judges have expressed deep dissatisfaction that the provisions in the NFSA in spite of being mandatory have not been fully implemented by some States even almost four years since the Act has been passed. The intention of the governments to implement the provisions of a law enacted by Parliament has been questioned by the Court. Further, the Court has pointed out that setting up independent and transparent grievance redress machinery is at the core of ensuring that the entitlements reach people.
The states that were asked to be present in Court in March 2017 were Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Bihar, Haryana and Chhattisgarh. The Judgement expressed deep anguish with the state of Haryana whose affidavit argued that there is hardly any work for the State Food Commission. “One can only feel sorry for the people in Haryana”is what they had to say in this regard.
The directives in the Swaraj Abhiyan case underscore the depressing reality that several State governments have not met key requirements in the legislation which empower the common person in securing subsidised food. Sections 14, 15 and 16, which require the setting up of a grievance redress mechanism and a State Food Commission with responsibility to monitor the implementation of the law, have been heeded only in name, as in Haryana, or not at all. Union Food Minister Ram Vilas Paswan’s claim last November that the Act covers the entire country is, therefore, not consistent with the facts.
As the court has pointed out, Article 256, which casts a responsibility on the States and the Union to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament, also provides the remedy, as it can be invoked by the Centre to set things right. Unfortunately, the NFSA, which is vital for social security through the Public Distribution System and child welfare schemes, has suffered due to a lack of political will.
As a law with egalitarian goals, the NFSA should have set the floor for food security through the principle of universal access, though not every citizen would need it. There is great merit in providing highly subsidised foodgrains to targeted households chosen by the State governments, with a ceiling of 75% of the population in rural areas and 50% in urban areas. But the system should have in-built mechanisms to allow for the entry of new households that suddenly find themselves in financial distress, while others can exit it based on changed circumstances.
Such arrangements can be made only when there is a full-fledged, independent machinery in the form of a Food Commission, and district-level grievance redress, besides social audits. All these are provided for under the Act, but have been ignored.
Modernisation of the PDS, with the use of information technology, could incorporate such dynamic features to the supply of subsidised food to those who need it, and eliminate deficiencies and fraud. Now that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has been given specific directives by the court to complete the unfinished tasks this year, it should make up for lost time. Food Ministry data presented to Parliament show that the present system does not reflect the true scale of public grievances, with a mere 1,106 complaints received from beneficiaries nationwide in 2016, including those reported in the media.