Legal Service India.com  
law articles

Enforcing Right To Food in India

click here for LIVE help-desk
Chat with us  (2 PM - 9 PM IST)


B.Jyoti Kiran - IV Year Student, NLIU

  Search On:Laws in IndiaLawyers Search

Objective Of The Project
While extreme hunger is always there in India, natural disasters such as floods and droughts bring more hunger because so many of the people are so vulnerable, living at the edge of hunger all the time.

Like many other developing countries, India has a wide variety of feeding programs, food subsidies, and other sorts of "schemes" to alleviate hunger, but somehow these programs are never quite enough. Lacking political power, marginalized people stay marginalized despite such efforts to help them. They can be empowered, however, through clear acknowledgment of their human rights. Over the centuries, many millions of people have gone hungry in India. Now, for the first time, the claim has been made that the government has a positive obligation to do something enforce this right, and if government does not meet its obligation, it can be called to account in the nation's courts.

In terms of the law, the human right to adequate food is a part of the right to an adequate livelihood, which is a part of economic rights, which is a part of human rights generally, which is a part of international law.

The core idea underlying human rights is simple. There are some fundamental things that people require if they are to live in dignity, and therefore they should be recognized as having rights to those things. These rights are spelled out in international human rights law. While every individual and every organization has certain obligations with regard to the human rights of the people they affect, it is national governments that carry the primary obligation to assure that people are able to live in dignity.

The right to food is one of the most basic human rights, closely linked to the right to life. No government practice or action can be allowed to deny this right to people. Human Rights are indivisible and inalienable. The denial of one right inevitably affects the enjoyment of other rights, but also the inherent relationship between the rule of law and the protection of all human rights, including the right to food. Effective rule of law does not include only legal provisions on paper, but their adequate implementation and room for redress. The right to food in particular, must be made justiciable in courts of law. All those suffering from the pangs of hunger are also being denied other basic human rights, be they civil and political rights, or economic, social and cultural rights. And in all the cases, these rights are not affected by natural causes or a lack of resources, but rather by systemic negligence and ineffective distribution.

The Ultimate objective of this project is to see that the Right to Food is legally recognized as a fundamental right in India thereby putting an end to death due to hunger, malnutrition and starvation.

Although Right to food has been a much talked and discussed about topic among the intelligentsia of the country, the most innovative thing about my project related to Right to food in India is that in my project I have tried to analyze the Right to food with a purely legal view above the terms of state's moral duty and responsibility to provide adequate food to its citizens. It has to make the paradigm shift from the domain of benevolence to that of the right of a citizen. It would imply that the beneficiaries of relief measures should be recognized as claim holders. Viewed from this perspective, the prevalence of distress-conditions threatening starvation constitutes an injury requiring the imposition of a penalty on the State. The penalty would be claimed for the affected groups as a whole rather than on the basis of individual claims. The Right to Food implies the right to food at appropriate nutritional levels. It also implies that the quantum of relief to those in distress must meet those levels in order to ensure that the Right to Food is actually secured, and does not remain a theoretical concept. I am a strong supporter of the formation of the fundamental right of Right to Food.

Introduction:-
From a nation dependent on food imports to feed its population, India today is not only self-sufficient in grain production, but also has a substantial reserve. The progress made by agriculture in the last four decades has been one of the biggest success stories of free India. Agriculture and allied activities constitute the single largest contributor to the Gross Domestic Product, almost 33% of it. Agriculture is the means of livelihood of about two--thirds of the work force in the country.

It is true that the country now produces enough food to feed its entire people. India no longer suffers through large-scale famines as it has in the past. When there are rapid increases in hunger in some parts of India, it is now usually attributed to short-term natural events such as hurricanes or droughts. These are described as transitory, episodic events, temporary deviations from normal.

However, this upbeat version of the food situation in India neglects the reality of widespread chronic malnutrition in the country. Temporary disruptions in the food system by natural calamities are disastrous for so many people only because they live so close to the edge of disaster under normal conditions. India could feed its entire people, but it doesn't. The chronic conditions the conditions that are normal for many millions of people in India are unacceptable in terms of the basic requirements of human dignity.

The problems are not rooted in the vagaries of natural phenomena, but in deeply embedded political and economic patterns. There are massive governmental programs--or schemes as they are called--for feeding poor children, providing subsidized foods, etc.--but still the problems persist. Enormous amounts of money are spent on such programs. Yet, somehow, the benefits don't reach the people who need them most.

There is a story now unfolding that helps us to understand how things can go so wrong. The central government of India has been storing many millions of tons of grain while people are starving. That is not new. What is new is that a human rights organization in India, the People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), has challenged this practice in the Supreme Court of India. Light is being shined into places that had been well hidden, and the scandal is being thoroughly aired in India�s media.

The case is being tried on the basis of India's constitution and its federal and state laws, especially its famed Famine Code. This review shows how the case fits into the framework of international human rights, and specifically the human right to adequate food. Viewing the case in this larger context, we can see that this case is relevant to food assistance programs in every country, and to international humanitarian assistance as well.

The Supreme Court Decision
On April 16, 2001, the PUCL submitted a
writ petition to the Supreme Court of India asking three major questions:

A. Starvation deaths is a natural phenomenon while there is a surplus stock of food grains in the Government godown. Does the right to life mean that people who are starving and who are too poor to buy food grains ought to be given food grains free of cost by the State from the surplus stock lying with the State, particularly when it is reported that a large part of it is lying unused and rotting?

B. Does not the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India include the right to food?

C. Does not the right to food, which has been upheld by the Hon�ble Court, imply that the State has a duty to provide food especially in situations of drought, to people who are drought affected and are not in a position to purchase food?

Article 21 of the constitution, entitled Protection of life and personal liberty, says, in its entirety, No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

As a result of the ongoing proceedings, the Supreme Court has been issuing orders calling upon government agencies to identify the needy within their jurisdictions, and to assure that they receive adequate food. For example, on July 23, 2001, the court said:

In our opinion, 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-existent leading to mal-nourishment, starvation and other related problems.

On September 3, 2001, the court directed that 16 states and union territories that had not identified families below the poverty line must do so within two weeks, so that those families could be provided with food assistance. After two weeks, on September 17, 2001, the court reprimanded them, saying, we are not satisfied that any such exercise in the right earnestness has been undertaken. They were then given another three weeks to comply with the order. The court also reminded the states that certain schemes of the Central Government are mentioned which are required to be implemented by State Governments:

The Chief Secretaries of all the States & the Union Territories are hereby directed to report to the Cabinet Secretary, with copy to the learned Attorney General, within three weeks from today with regard to the implementation of all or any of these Schemes with or without any modification and if all or any of the Schemes have not been implemented then the reasons for the same.

All state governments were directed to take their entire allotment of foodgrains from the Central Government under the various Schemes and disburse the same in accordance with the Schemes. Further, the court required that the Food for Work Programme in the scarcity areas should also be implemented by the various States to the extent possible.

On November 28, 2001, the court issued directions to eight of the major schemes, calling on them to identify the needy and to provide them with grain and other services by early 2002. For example, for the Targeted Public Distribution Scheme, The States are directed to complete the identification of BPL (below poverty level) families, issuing of cards, and commencement of distribution of 25 kgs. grain per family per month latest by 1st January, 2002.

Intervention by the Supreme Court is a mechanism of accountability, but it is not normally available to ordinary people on a local basis. The present Supreme Court case in India has become necessary because there are no effective mechanisms of accountability available to ordinary people at the local level. Until local people know their rights and know that they have effective means through which to exercise them, there is no effective system for assuring the realization of the right to adequate food in India.

Right To Food - On The Touchstone Of The Indian Constitution
"
The Constitution of India has the right to everything, but in practice, the people have the right to nothing,"

In any rights system there are three distinct roles to be fulfilled: the rights holders, the duty bearers, and the agents of accountability. The task of the agents of accountability is to make sure that those who have the duty carry out their obligations to those who have the rights. To describe a rights system, we need to know the identities and also the functions of those who carry out these roles. We would also want to know the mechanisms or structures through which these functions are to be carried out. Thus, we would want to know:
A. The nature of the rights holders and their rights;

B. The nature of the duty-bearers and their obligations corresponding to the rights of the rights holders; and

C. The nature of the agents of accountability, and the procedures through which they assure that the duty bearers meet their obligations to the rights holders. The accountability mechanisms include, in particular, the remedies available to the rights holders themselves.

These are the three core components, the "ABCs" of rights systems. A rights system can be understood as a kind of cybernetic self-regulating arrangement designed to assure that rights are realized. In any cybernetic system, a goal is decided upon, and means are established for reaching that goal. In addition, there are specific means for making corrections in case there are deviations from the path toward the goal. This is the self-regulating aspect of the system. With regard to the human right to adequate food, the goal is to end hunger and malnutrition.

Any government can say it has such lofty goals. These things may even be promised in the nation's constitution. But we know that there are many cases in which governments go off course and fail to deliver on their promises. In nations where there is an effective rights system, however, there are specific mechanisms for calling the government to account; that is, for making course corrections. The most fundamental of these mechanisms of accountability is for rights holders themselves to have effective remedies through which they can complain and have the government's behavior corrected. This is the missing piece in India's system for addressing the right to food. Where there are no effective remedies, there are no effective rights.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees a fundamental right to life liberty. The expression Life in this Article has been judicially interpreted to mean a life with human dignity and not mere survival or animal existence. In the light of this, the State is obliged to provide for all those minimum requirements which must be satisfied in order to enable a person to live with human dignity, such as education, health care, just and humane conditions of work, protection against exploitation etc. In the view of the Commission, the Right to Food is inherent to a life with dignity, and Article 21 should be read with Articles 39(a) and 47 to understand the nature of the obligations of the State in order to ensure the effective realisation of this right. Article 39(a) of the Constitution, enunciated as one of the Directive Principles, fundamental in the governance of the country, requires the State to direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means to livelihood. Article 47 spells out the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people as a primary responsibility. The citizen's right to be free from hunger enshrined in Article 21 is to be ensured by the fulfillment of the obligations of the State set out in Articles 39(a) and 47.

The reading of Article 21 together with Articles 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. The requirements of the Constitution preceded, and are consonant with, the obligations of the State under the 1966 International Covenant of the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to which India is a party. That Covenant, in Article 11, expressly recognises the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food.

Despite its strong economic growth, rapid development of information technology and the claim of being the largest democracy in the world, India remains one of the worst human rights violators in Asia. Being discriminated on the basis of caste is unfortunately a common occurrence for a large number of India's population. demonstrates how this discrimination violates many of their fundamental human rights, including their right to food.

The practice of caste discrimination, by its very nature, is one that affects the right to food, and many other rights, as described above. In this case then, hunger is caused by social practices, not any natural causes. Furthermore, there is a strong link between the protection of the right to food (and other rights) and the rule of law. While there are legal provisions available (as will be shown in the section below) for the protection of both the rights to food and non-discrimination, these rights are clearly still being violated.

This highlights not only the indivisibility of rights whereby the denial of one right inevitably affects the enjoyment of other rights, but also the inherent relationship between the rule of law and the protection of all human rights, including the right to food. Effective rule of law does not include only legal provisions on paper, but their adequate implementation and room for redress. The right to food in particular, must be made justiciable in courts of law.

THE RIGHT TO FOOD INTERNATIONALLY
The orders issued by the court clearly established that the court understands the right to life, affirmed in article 21 of India�s constitution, as implying the right to food. While the court has been guided entirely by national law, it could also draw on recent advances made in understanding the right to food at the global level.

There is increasing recognition worldwide of the human right to adequate food. There is a legal obligation to assure that all people are adequately nourished. The articulation of the human right to adequate food in modern international human rights law arises in the context of the broader human right to an adequate standard of living. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 asserts in article 25(1) that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food . . . ."

The human right to adequate food was subsequently reaffirmed in two major binding international agreements. In the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (which came into force in 1976), article 11 says that "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing, and housing . . ." and also recognizes "the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger . . . "

In the Convention on the Rights of the Child (which came into force in 1990), two articles address the issue of nutrition. Article 24 says that "States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health . . .(paragraph 1)" and shall take appropriate measures "to combat disease and malnutrition . . . . through the provision of adequate nutritious foods, clean drinking water, and health care (paragraph 2c)." Article 24 also says that States Parties shall take appropriate measures . . . "To ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition [and] the advantages of breastfeeding . . . ."

Article 27 says in paragraph 3 that States Parties "shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing, and housing."

Even if the human right to adequate food had not been stated directly, it would be strongly implied in other provisions such as those asserting the right to life and health, or the Convention on the Rights of the Child's requirement (in article 24, paragraph 2a) that States Parties shall "take appropriate measures to diminish infant and child mortality". The human right to adequate food has been reaffirmed at the international level in many different settings.

Beginning in the late 1990s, work on the human right to adequate food at the global level centered on a mandate from the World Food Summit held in Rome in 1996. In the Summit's concluding Plan of Action, Objective 7.4 called upon . . .

... the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in consultation with relevant treaty bodies, and in collaboration with relevant specialized agencies and programmes of the UN system and appropriate inter- governmental mechanisms, to better define the rights related to food in Article 11 of the Covenant and to propose ways to implement and realize these rights . . . .

A series of expert consultations, conferences, and studies steadily clarified the meaning of the human right to food. This effort culminated with the publication on May 12, 1999 by the UN's Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of its General Comment 12 (Twentieth session, 1999): The Right to Adequate Food (Art. 11). This statement by the committee constitutes a definitive contribution to international jurisprudence.

Paragraph 5 of General Comment 12 observes, Fundamentally, 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 reference here is to the fundamental distinction between availability (is there food around?) and access (can you make a claim on that food?). Paragraph 6 presents the core definition:

The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement. GC12 paragraph 7 explains that adequacy means that account must be taken of what is appropriate under given circumstances. Food security implies food being accessible for both present and future generations. Sustainability relates to long-term availability and accessibility. Thus, as explained in paragraph 8, the core content of the right to adequate food implies:

The availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable within a given culture;

The accessibility of such food in ways that are sustainable and that do not interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights.

Paragraph 14 summarizes the obligations of States as follows:
Every State is obliged to ensure for everyone under its jurisdiction access to the minimum essential food which is sufficient, nutritionally adequate and safe, to ensure their freedom from hunger.

Paragraph 15 draws out the different kinds or levels of obligations of the state. These obligations may be sorted into categories as follows:
#
respect - "The obligation to respect existing access to adequate food requires States parties not to take any measures that result in preventing such access."
#
protect - "The obligation to protect requires measures by the State to ensure that enterprises or individuals do not deprive individuals of their access to adequate food."
#
fulfil (facilitate) - "The obligation to fulfil (facilitate) means the State must pro-actively engage in activities intended to strengthen people's access to and utilization of resources and means to ensure their livelihood, including food security."
#
fulfil (provide) - "Finally, whenever an individual or group is unable, for reasons beyond their control, to enjoy the right to adequate food by the means at their disposal, States have the obligation to fulfil (provide) that right directly. This obligation also applies for persons who are victims of natural or other disasters."

General Comment 12 also addresses the issues of implementation at the national level, framework legislation, monitoring, remedies and accountability, and international obligations.

The primary responsibility of national governments is to facilitate, which means assuring that there are enabling conditions that allow people to provide for themselves. However, where people not able to feed themselves adequately, governments have some obligation to provide for them. While international law does not specify the character or level of assistance that is required, it is clear that, at the very least, people must not be allowed to go hungry. Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger. Paragraph 6 of General Comment 12 explains, States have a core obligation to take the necessary action to mitigate and alleviate hunger as provided for in paragraph 2 of article 11, even in times of natural or other disasters. Paragraph 14 adds, Every State is obliged to ensure for everyone under its jurisdiction access to the minimum essential food which is sufficient, nutritionally adequate and safe, to ensure their freedom from hunger. Paragraph 17 says,Violations of the Covenant occur when a State fails to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, the minimum essential level required to be free from hunger. There is no ambiguity here

To repeat the main definition:
The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement. It is clear that this goal has not been achieved in India. Perhaps even more important, at this stage, is the fact that the realization of the right to food has not been clearly established as the government's goal. Much of the debate in India has centered on the question of whether there have in fact been large numbers of starvation deaths. Those who say no, and thus defend the government, take a narrow view of the meaning of
starvation. They take it to mean deaths directly attributable to an extreme lack of food, and they focus on adult deaths. In fact, most deaths associated with malnutrition are due to a combination of malnutrition and disease. The immediate, final cause of death, the phrase written on the death certificate, is usually some disease, often an infectious disease, rather than starvation or hunger as such.

India's government agencies at both central and state levels seem to have trouble seeing the massive hunger that characterizes India. This is apparent in the working agenda of the National Institute of Nutrition in Hyderabad. The institute occupies itself with minor technical questions, and does experimental studies on questions that can be addressed quite adequately in developed countries, while practically ignoring the deep and widespread hunger all around the country. Technical research avoids facing up to the problem, which is deeply political. There is no hope of solving the hunger problem if the government and its agencies refuse to see it.

In developed countries, hunger may be hard to see, but in developing countries, the suggestion that there is no hunger can only be a matter of deliberate denial. Some in government in India are suggesting that the poor have no serious problems, while many of the poor are in such deep despair that they are committing suicide.

As a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, India has committed itself to honoring the right to adequate food.

It follows, therefore, that there is a fundamental right to be free from hunger. Starvation constitutes a gross denial and violation of this right. As starvation deaths reported from some pockets of the country are now invariably the consequences of misgovernance resulting from acts of omission and commission on the part of public servants, they are of direct concern to the Commission under the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Universally, there is a demand that every effort be made by the State and by civil society to eradicate the poverty and hunger that constitute an affront to the dignity and worth of the human person. First and foremost among the United Nations Millenium Development Goals (MDG) is the pledge made by all Heads of State and Government to halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of the world�s poor and of people who suffer from hunger. Given the circumstances of our country, India has a special responsibility in this regard. The prevalence of extreme poverty and hunger is unconscionable in this day and age, for not only does it militate against respect for human rights, but it also undermines the prospects of peace and harmony within a State.

Conclusion
The cases described throughout the Right to Food series have also clearly pointed to the indivisibility of all human rights. All those suffering from the pangs of hunger are also being denied other basic human rights, be they civil and political rights, or economic, social and cultural rights. And in all the cases, these rights are not affected by natural causes or a lack of resources, but rather by systemic negligence and ineffective distribution.

The right to food is one of the most basic human rights, closely linked to the right to life. No government practice or action can be allowed to deny this right to people.

The right to food is implicitly recognized in such provisions as the right to life, the right to health and the right to economic, social and cultural development, which are expressly recognized under the Constitution of India. The right to food is inseparably linked to the dignity of human beings and is therefore essential for the enjoyment and fulfillment of such other rights as health, education, work and political participation.

Therefore, We as responsible and enlightened citizens should pressurize our government to enforce the Right to Food, which is one of the most basic Human rights. It is the duty of the state, as a welfare state, to ensure adequate food and nutrition for its people. There is a saying in Awadhi that Bhukhe Pet Bhaje Na Gopala which means that hungry stomachs can't even worship properly let alone achieving other feats in life. Our government should first ensure food for all , then only the people of this country would be able to contribute to the progress and development of the nation, thereby making our country a better place to live in.

lawyers More Articles:
The Law And Animals
Reservation- Solution To The Problem
Human Rights Courts in India
 
The Narmada Dispute

We offer Copyright Registration Services
Right from your Desktop
.....

Divorce Advice - Legal Advice Ask Our legal Experts, on issues related to Divorce Click Here

Consult a lawyer: Delhi - Kolkata - Chennai -Mumbai - Jaipur - Gurgaon -Lucknow - Nagpur - Pune - Bangalore - Chandigarh - Ahmedabad - Hyderabad - Thane - Ludhiana - Indore - Ghaziabad - Noida - Jodhpur - Pondicherry - New Delhi  - Cochin

Authors contact info - articles The  author can be reached at: jk.nliu@legalserviceindia.comm / Law Print This Article

Legal Service India

Arbitration
Cyber Law
Copyright
Protect your website
Trademarks
Passport
Income-Tax
Contract laws
Criminal laws
Lok Adalat, legal Aid & PIL
Supreme Court Judgments
Legal Latin maxims
Famous Trials

Download law Forms
Famous - Quotes
Medico Legal
Divorce law
Family law
Patent Forms
Wills
law ibrary
Law Articles
Legal Resources
Cheque bounce laws
Law Blog
legal Discussion Forum
Osama Bin Laden
Stamp Duty Calculator
Link-Exchange
Bare - Acts
Constitutional Law
Immigration Law

Company Law
Partnership firms
Woman issues
Consumer laws
Cause Lists
High Courts in India
legal Profession
Law Forum
Web-Search
Blogs

Ad page
Sitemap

RSS Feed

Lawyers in India - Search by City

legal Service India

lawyers in Delhi - New Delhi
lawyers in Chennai
lawyers in Chandigarh
lawyers in Surat
lawyers in Nashik
lawyers in Janjgir
lawyers in Indore
lawyers in Allahabad
lawyers in Agra
lawyers in Ahmedabad
lawyers in Jodhpur
Lawyers in Noida & Gr Noida
Lawyers in New York
Lawyers India

lawyers in Kolkata
lawyers in Mumbai
lawyers in Bangalore
lawyers in Pune
lawyers in Hyderabad
lawyers in Rajkot
lawyers in Nagpur
lawyers in Pondicherry
lawyers in Jaipur
lawyers in Cochin
lawyers in Lucknow
International Courts
Law Colleges
Law Debates

Home | About Us | Privacy | Terms of use | F A Q | Divorce by mutual consent | Lawyers | Submit article | Sitemap | Contact Us

legal Service India.com is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act ( Govt of India) 2000-2013
ISBN No: 978-93-82417-01-9