Home  

« Home |Previous Post: Women's Rights » |Previous Post: Witch Hunting » |Previous Post: Police Reforms » |Previous Post: Legal Aid » |Previous Post: About Lawyers For Rights » |Previous Post: Objectives & Modus Operandi » |Previous Post: Lawyers for Rights Team » |Previous Post: Lawyers For Rights Blog » |Previous Post: LFR Diary »

Our Areas of Work
Right to Information (RTI)
Right to Food
Women's Rights
Witch Hunting
Police Reforms
Legal Aid
 
About Us:
About LFR
Objectives & Modus Operandi
Team Members
 
 
 
Previous Posts:
 
Archive:
 
 
Right to Food
 
Right to Food - the meaning & the origin:
This is an age of “India Shining” and you might have gone through a lot of news articles saying how well-stocked we are as a nation in food grains. At same time, another news item in the same paper catches your eye – “People dies of starvation – drought/flood..”.

Does not above two stories contradict one another? While we have surplus food stocks, same are not available to people in need. This is the genesis of “Right to Food”.. An NGO named People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) filed a writ petition in Supreme Court on April 16, 2001 asking the same question - "Starvation deaths have become a National Phenomenon while there is a surplus stock of food grains in government godowns. Does the right to life mean that people who are starving and who are too poor to buy food grains free of cost by the State from the surplus stock lying with the State particularly when it is lying unused and rotting?"

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution on “Protection of life and personal liberty” states that:
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Now, if you do not have bare minimum to eat, how can you live? If the Govt. of India fails to give you the bare minimum food, will it not amount to deprivation of your right to live?

Therefore, Your “Right to Food” emanates from this very important article (Article-21) - you can live only when you have the food to eat!

Supreme Courts Directive on above writ petition:
As a fall-out of above writ petition by PUCL, Supreme Court ordered that following eight poverty alleviation schemes of the Central Government are required to be implemented by State Governments:
1. Targeted Public Distribution System.
2. Antyodaya Anna Yojona.
3. Mid Day Meal Scheme ( MDMS).
4. National Old Age Pension Scheme.
5. Annapurna.
6. Integrated Child Development Scheme ( ICDS).
7. National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS).
8. National Family Benefit Scheme.
The court also issued directions to states 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 35 kgs. grain per family per month latest by 1st January, 2002”.

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”.

Food for Right is now a legal entitlement:
Through this interim order (on November 28, 2001), the Supreme Court converted most food and employment-related schemes into “legal entitlements”. This also implies that the Government of India and state governments cannot change these schemes without the permission of the SC till the final judgment is passed in this case.

Mechanism to monitor Right to Food:
In a subsequent interim order on May 8, 2002, the SC also put in place an independent mechanism—the Commissioners of the Supreme Court—to ensure compliance by the state and central government with the orders of the court.

The Commissioners submit bi-annual reports to the SC. Six reports highlighting non-compliance, structural issues regarding hunger, and the hurdles in implementation have been submitted to the SC so far. The SC then asks the state and central governments to respond to the issues raised by the Commissioners.

The Commissioners are also empowered to move contempt of court charges against Chief Secretaries and other senior state/ central government officials when the non-compliance is wilful and deliberate. The Commissioners have appointed Joint Commissions of Enquiry (JCEs) with representatives nominated both by the Commissioners and the government, to enquire into charges of malfeasance by government officials in food schemes. JCEs have been commissioned in Chhattisgarh, Assam, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh. These enquiries have led to the dismissal of a few officials, departmental enquiries against some, and suspension from service for others. They have also led to grievances about the implementation of food schemes being addressed.

The Commissioners operate through a network of honorary state and national advisers to monitor the progress of the food schemes, suggest reforms in the laws, policies and programmes pertaining to the Right to Food, and, wherever necessary, get directions from the SC and have action taken against erring state/ central government officials.

What LFR does for Right to Food:
Although this right is now available to the citizens as a legal entitlement, the poor and the needy among them have not used these rights to demand, because of lack of awareness. LFR disseminates information to civil society groups on such alleviation schemes through workshops and meetings.

We also provide information where they should approach and get the benefits of such schemes. For instance Supreme Court Commissioner appointed in this case is one of the grievance authority bodies. This is where people can put forward their complaint. However till date the people have not been able to utilize their role and responsibilities. It is because of such issues we as organization try to connect and network with the commissioner and the people for better implementation of the schemes.

How LFR support the grass roots NGO’s?
People are encouraged now to use RTI against these schemes to find out how much rations they are allotted and whether the BPL families are getting the ration in installment, how many beneficiaries are getting the benefit of the schemes and how many schools are providing the mid day meal and how much money has been allotted to each students; in PDS, how much kerosene is being allotted and how much they should provide for the household.

Finally after getting all the information on irregularities, LFR might able to take up litigation as a last resort.

For your any further query, we would be happy to answer. You can contact us at emaillfr@gmail.com. We would also be happy if you post your comments on this topic below.
Post a Comment
posted by Lawyers For Rights on Saturday, July 21, 2007 @ 11:22 PM  
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Home
 
About this blog:

How did this blog came into being?  Read about its genesis..

You are invited:
It is a collaborative effort and we wish you participate by contributing....  Read more!

 
Visitors online now:
 
Total Blog Hits: