Holding

The Court held that, given the comprehensive and rights‑based framework of the National Food Security Act, 2013, it cannot direct the States to implement Community Kitchens, as judicial review is limited to the legality of policies, not their desirability.

Summary

The petitioners, claiming to be social activists, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking that the Union and State governments formulate and implement Community Kitchens to combat hunger, malnutrition and starvation, and also sought a National Food Grid beyond the Public Distribution Scheme. The Court noted that the Union had previously directed the states to consider such schemes and that the states had responded by detailing numerous existing food security programmes under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA). The petitioners argued that despite these schemes, the constitutional duty to ensure basic sustenance required additional measures like Community Kitchens. The Court held that the NFSA provides a comprehensive, rights‑based legal framework with monitoring and grievance mechanisms, and that judicial review of policy matters is limited to legality, not the wisdom of the policy. Consequently, the Court declined to direct the states to adopt Community Kitchens, leaving it to the executive to explore alternative schemes, and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

The petitioners' entitlement under Article 32 to seek a direction for the implementation of Community Kitchens across States/UTs.
Whether the existing framework under the National Food Security Act, 2013 suffices to meet the constitutional right to food and life, rendering a directive for Community Kitchens unnecessary.
The scope of judicial review concerning policy decisions and the appropriateness of directing the executive to adopt a specific welfare scheme.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.21, s. Art.32, s. Art.47, s. Art.50(1)A
National Food Security Act, 2013s. Section 12(h), s. Section 39(d)

Subjects

Constitution of IndiaFood and nutritional securityHungerStarvationMalnutritionCommunity KitchenRight to FoodRight to lifeHuman dignityWelfare schemeJudicial reviewPolicy matterPublic healthRights based approachSocial activist

Judgment

[2024] 2 S.C.R. 812 : 2024 INSC 136

Anun Dhawan & Ors.
v.
Union of India & Ors.
(Writ petition (Civil) No. 1103 of 2019)
22 February 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
In the instant writ petition, Petitioners claiming to be social activists
sought directions against the States and Union Territories to
formulate a scheme to implement the concept of Community
Kitchens to combat hunger, malnutrition and starvation and the
deaths resulting therefrom. The Petitioners also sought direction
against National Legal Services Authority to formulate a scheme
in order to further the provisions of Art.50(1)A of the Constitution,
as also against the Central Government to create a National Food
Grid beyond the scope of the Public Distribution Scheme.

Headnotes
Public health – Food and nutritional security – Alternate welfare
schemes – Scope of judicial review in examining policy matters
– Prayer of Petitioner to direct the States/UTs to implement
the concept of Community Kitchens – Tenability – National
Food Security Act, 2013 – Constitution of India – Art. 32.
Held: There being a systematic legal framework provided under the
National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA) for the implementation
of the schemes and programmes like Targeted Public Distribution
System, Mid-day Meal Scheme, Integrated Child Development
Services and Maternity Cash Entitlement along with a Monitoring
Mechanism and a Grievance Redressal Mechanism, and the
States/UTs having also implemented various other schemes and
programmes under the said Act, this Court does not propose to
direct the States/UTs to implement the concept of Community
Kitchens as prayed for by the petitioners in the instant petition
– It is well settled that the scope of judicial review in examining
the policy matters is very limited – The Courts do not and cannot
examine the correctness, suitability or appropriateness of a policy,
nor are the courts advisors to the executive on the matters of policy

* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 813

Anun Dhawan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

which the executive is entitled to formulate – The Courts cannot
direct the States to implement a particular policy or scheme on
the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available
– Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the
policy, would be the subject of judicial review – When the NFSA
with a ‘right based approach’ for providing food and nutritional
security, is in force and when other welfare schemes under the
said Act have also been framed and implemented by the Union
of India and the States, to ensure access to adequate quantity of
quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity,
this Court does not propose to give any further direction in that
regard. [Paras 7, 8 and 9]
Constitution of India – Arts. 21 and 47 – Right to Food –
Discussed.
Held: Though the Constitution of India does not explicitly provide
for Right to food, the fundamental Right to life enshrined in Art.21
of the Constitution does include Right to live with human dignity
and right to food and other basic necessities – Art.47 of the
Constitution also provides that the State shall regard the raising
of level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the
improvement of public health as among its primary duties. [Para 5]
National Food Security Act, 2013 – Object and purpose of the
Act – Discussed.
Held: Keeping in view the goal of eradicating extreme poverty
and hunger as one of the goals of United Nations, and keeping
in view the constitutional guarantees for ensuring food security
of the people as also for improving the nutritional status of the
population, especially of women and children, the Parliament has
enacted the National Food Security Act, 2013 – The object of the
Act is to provide for food and nutritional security in human life
cycle approach, by ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality
food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity and
for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto – With the
enactment of the NFSA there was a paradigm shift in the approach
to food security from “welfare to rights based approach.” [Para 6]

Case Law Cited
Directorate of Film Festivals and Others vs. Gaurav
Ashwin Jain and Others, [2007] 5 SCR 7 : (2007) 4
SCC 737 – referred to.
814 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

List of Acts
National Food Security Act, 2013 ; Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Constitution of India; Food and nutritional security; Hunger;
Starvation; Malnutrition; Community Kitchen; Right to Food; Right
to life; Human dignity; Welfare scheme; Judicial review; Policy
matter; Public health; Rights based approach; Social activist.

Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.1103 of
2019
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Ashima Mandla, Surya Pratap Singh, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi,
Advs. for the Petitioners.
K.M. Nataraj, Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.Gs., Ms. Garima Prasad, Sr.
A.A.G., B.K. Satija, Ms. Ankita Choudhary, Tapesh Kumar Singh,
A.A.Gs., Gurminder Singh, Sr. Adv./A.G., R Bala, Dr. Manish Singhvi,
V.K. Mudigl, Sr. Advs., Chinmayee Chandra, Amit Sharma B, Mrs.
Sonali Jain, Raman Yadav, Chitvan Sinhal, Abhishek Kumar Pandey,
Kartikay Agrawal, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Amrish Kumar, Raj Bahadur
Yadav, Gaurav Agrawal, Chandra Prakash, Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal,
Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Ms. Manya Hasija, Tejasvi Gupta, T. Illayarasu,
Nirnimesh Dube, Ms. Purnima Krishna, Shuvodeep Roy, Dr. Joseph
Aristotle S., Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka,
Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Indira
Bhakar, Vinayak Sharma, Krishan Kant Dubey, Piyush Beriwal,
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Apoorv Kurup, Harish Pandey, Shashwat
Parihar, Debojit Borkakati, Chirag M. Shroff, Dhananjay Kataria,
Sumeer Sodhi, Ms. Shreya Singh, Manish Kumar, Shrirang B.
Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat
Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Raavi Sharma, Sandeep
Kumar Jha, Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee, Mrs. Aditi Agarwal,
Vinayak Mohan, Samar Vijay Singh, Sukhdev Sharma, Keshav Mittal,
Ms. Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh, V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal
Gupta, Sunny Choudhary, Rajesh K. Singh, Mayur Chaturvedi, Karan
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 815

Anun Dhawan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Bishnoi, Shailesh Madiyal, Santosh Kumar-I, Aravindh S., Abbas,
Ms. Kavya Geetha, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal,
Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Satish Pandey, Akshai Malik,
Khawar Saleem, Nikhil Jain, Ms. Divya Jain, Ms. Monica Dhingra,
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms.
Chubalemla Changa, Prang Newmai, Ms. Mukti Chowdhary, Ajay
Pal, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Prashant Bhardwaj, Aditya Pratap Singh,
Priyanshu Malik, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma,
Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, R. Rajaselvan, Shreyas Awasthi, Bhanu
Mishra, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ranjan Mukherjee, Shibashish Misra,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Mrs. Vaishali Verma, Ms. Sonali Jain, Chitvan
Singhal, Kartikay Aggarwal, Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Avijit
Mani Tripathi, Upendra Mishra, P.S. Negi, T.K. Nayak, Ms. Marbiang
Khongwir, Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Pranav Sachdeva,
Sanjay Kumar Visen, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Pashupathi Nath Razdan,
M. Shoeb Alam, Abhinav Mukerji, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K
Joy, Alim Anvar, Abraham Mathew, Santosh Krishnan, Sahil Bhalaik,
Hitesh kumar Sharma, S.K. Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, Amit Kumar
Chawla, Ms. Ritika Raj, Ms. Komal, Ms. Niharika Dwivedi, M. Yogesh
Kanna, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Ms. Rachna
Gandhi, Raghvendra Kumar, Anand Kumar Dubey, Ms. Inderdeep
Kaur Raina, Kartikeya Rastogi, Karan Sharma, Ms. Princy Sharma,
Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Ms. Indira Bhaskar, Vineet Singh, Kumar
Vaibhav, Ms. Devina Sehgal, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Bela M. Trivedi, J.
1. The petitioners claiming to be the social activists have filed the present
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking various
directions against the States and Union Territories to formulate a
scheme to implement the concept of Community Kitchens to combat
hunger, malnutrition and starvation and the deaths resulting thereof.
The petitioners have also sought direction against the National
Legal Services Authority to formulate a scheme in order to further
the provisions of Article 50(1)A of the Constitution, as also against
the Central Government to create a National Food Grid beyond the
scope of the Public Distribution Scheme.
816 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

2. This Court vide the order dated 27.10.2021 had directed the Union
of India to interact with the concerned stakeholders for consideration
of the Community Kitchens Scheme or any other similar schemes
relating to Community Kitchens which are already in operation in
different states. Subsequently also various orders were passed by
the Court directing the States to attend the meetings managed by
the Union of India for exploring the possibility of framing up of the
Community Kitchens Scheme.
3. The States/Union Territories have filed their counter affidavits/
responses stating in detail about the schemes adopted and enforced
in their respective states like Poshan Abhiyan, Take Home Ration,
Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana, Mid-Day Meal, Open
Market Sales Scheme, One Nation One Ration Card Scheme,
Annapurna Scheme, Antyodaya Anna Yojana etc. also stating
that some of the schemes are monitored by the Integrated Child
Development Services and Integrated Tribal Development Program.
The States in their respective affidavits had also stated that there
were no deaths reported due to starvation or malnutrition. The
Union of India has also submitted that the Government is committed
to focus on combating hunger and malnutrition by implementing
various schemes through the State Governments to enhance the
food security. As per the submission, the Pradhan Mantri Garib
Kalyan Anna Yojana was launched to address economic disruptions
and is extended to free grain provision to Antyodaya Anna Yojana
and Priority Households to alleviate poverty burdens; Atma Nirbhar
Bharat Package allocated additional food grain for migrants during
the Covid-19 crisis; Pradhan Mantri Poshan Shakti Nirman Scheme
aims to improve nutrition among school students and accordingly
allocates food grains; Scheme for Adolescent Girls focuses to improve
the health and nutrition of adolescent girls aged 11 to 18 years;
Annapurna Scheme provides indigent senior citizens with free food
grains. The Advisories are being issued from time to time to include
millets and to widen nutritional standards to enhance nutrition levels
amongst the beneficiaries.
4. The learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that undoubtedly
the Union of India and the States have taken the steps to combat
hunger, malnutrition and starvation by implementing various Central
and State Government Schemes, however according to them even
if the hunger, malnutrition or starvation may not necessarily result in
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 817

Anun Dhawan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

death, the Centre and States have the constitutional duty to ensure
basic sustainability of human life. The learned ASG Mr. R. Bala
submitted that this being not an adversarial litigation, the details of
schemes, programmes, policies and other measures taken by the
Central Government and the State Governments have been submitted
to satisfy the conscience of the court that they have successfully
implemented the schemes for protecting the fundamental rights
of the citizens. He also submitted that there is no further need for
continued monitoring by this Court.
5. It is significant to note that though the Constitution of India does
not explicitly provide for Right to food, the fundamental Right to life
enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution does include Right to live
with human dignity and right to food and other basic necessities. The
Article 47 of the Constitution also provides that the State shall regard
the raising of level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people
and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties.
6. Keeping in view the goal of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger
as one of the goals of United Nations, and keeping in view the
constitutional guarantees for ensuring food security of the people as
also for improving the nutritional status of the population, especially of
women and children, the Parliament has enacted the National Food
Security Act, 2013 (for short NFSA). The object of the said Act is to
provide for food and nutritional security in human life cycle approach,
by ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable
prices to people to live a life with dignity and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto. With the enactment of the NFSA there
was a paradigm shift in the approach to food security from “welfare
to rights based approach.” The said Act has been implemented in all
States/ UTs. One of the guiding principles of the Act is its “life cycle
approach, wherein special provisions have been made for pregnant
women and lactating mothers and children in the age group of 6
months to 14 years, by entitling them to receive nutritious meals free of
cost, through a widespread network of Integrated Child Development
Services (ICDS) centers, called Anganwadi centers under the ICDS
schemes, and also through the schools under Mid-day Meal (MDM)
scheme”. Higher nutritional norms have also been prescribed for
malnourished children. Pregnant women and lactating mothers are
entitled to receive cash maternity benefit to partly compensate them
for the wage loss during the period of pregnancy and to supplement
818 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

nutrition. The Central Government after consultation with the State
Governments, has also framed the Rules called Cash Transfer of
Food Subsidy Rules 2015, in exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub section 2 of Section 39 read with clause (h) of
sub section 2 of Section 12 of the NFSA. Under the said Rules, the
State Governments have been enabled to implement the scheme
with the approval of the Central Government to provide food subsidy
in cash directly into the bank accounts of entitled households to
purchase the entitled quantity of food grains from the open market.
Significantly, Chapter VI under the Head “Women Empowerment”
has been incorporated which provides that the eldest woman who
is not less than 18 years of age in every eligible household, shall
be head of the household for the purpose of issue of ration cards.
The Grievance Redressal Mechanism at the District and the State
level has also been provided for expeditious and effective redressal
of grievances of the aggrieved persons in the matters relating to
distribution of entitled food grains or meals under Chapter II and to
enforce entitlements under the Act.
7. Thus, there being a systematic legal framework provided under the
NFSA for the implementation of the schemes and programmes like
Targeted Public Distribution System, Mid-day Meal Scheme, Integrated
Child Development Services and Maternity Cash Entitlement along
with a Monitoring Mechanism and a Grievance Redressal Mechanism,
and the States/UTs having also implemented various other schemes
and programmes under the said Act, we do not propose to direct
the States/UTs to implement the concept of Community Kitchens as
prayed for by the petitioners in the instant petition.
8. It is well settled that the scope of judicial review in examining the
policy matters is very limited. The Courts do not and cannot examine
the correctness, suitability or appropriateness of a policy, nor are
the courts advisors to the executive on the matters of policy which
the executive is entitled to formulate. The Courts cannot direct the
States to implement a particular policy or scheme on the ground
that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the
policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, would be the
subject of judicial review.1

1 Directorate of Film Festivals and Others vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and Others, (2007) 4 SCC 737
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 819

Anun Dhawan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

9. As elaborated earlier, when the NFSA with a ‘right based approach’
for providing food and nutritional security, is in force and when
other welfare schemes under the said Act have also been framed
and implemented by the Union of India and the States, to ensure
access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to
people to live a life with dignity, we do not propose to give any further
direction in that regard. We have not examined whether the concept
of Community Kitchens is a better or wiser alternative available to
the States to achieve the object of NFSA, rather we would prefer to
leave it open to the States/UTs to explore such alternative welfare
schemes as may be permissible under the NFSA.
10. Subject to the afore stated observations, the Writ Petition is disposed
of.

Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Result of the case:
with assistance of Sanyam Mishra, LCRA Writ Petition disposed of