The Right to Adequate Food : International and Indian Scenatio

The Right to Food is a basic human right and it is closely connected to other rights, such as the right to life and the right to health and fulfillments of these rights to certain extent depends on the fulfillment of the right to food.

To enjoy the right to food fully, people need access to health care and education, respect for their cultural values, the right to access and possess property and the right to organize themselves economically and politically. Without adequate food, people cannot lead healthy and active lives. They are not employable, cannot care for their children, and their children cannot learn to read and write.

The right to food is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, as part of the right to an adequate standard of living. “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food.” (Art25).

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is part of the International Bill of Human Rights, recognizes the Right to Adequate Food as an essential part of the right to an adequate standard of living [Art. 11 (1)]. It also explicitly recognizes “the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger” [Art. 11 (2)]. Get help from a medical negligence lawyer

Right to Food is classified into two components – the right to adequate food and fundamental right to be free from hunger.²

According to the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, 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. 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 (and) the accessibility of such food in ways that are sustainable and that do not interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights.³

According to Special Rapporteur, Right to Food is the right to have regular, permanent and free access, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensures a physical and mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified life free of fear.⁴

Therefore, right to adequate food includes three essential elements; the adequacy, availability of food, and the permanent access to food with dignity.⁵

Adequate food means that food should be sufficient. Adequacy means that the food must satisfy dietary needs, taking into account the individual’s age, living conditions, health, occupation, sex, etc. For example, if children’s food does not contain the nutrients necessary for their physical and mental development, it is not adequate. Food should be safe for human consumption and free from adverse substances, such as contaminants from industrial or agricultural processes, including residues from pesticides, hormones or veterinary drugs.⁶

Availability means food should be available from natural resources either through the production of food, by cultivating land or animal husbandry, or through other ways of obtaining food, such as fishing, hunting or gathering.⁷

Accessibility requires economic and physical access to food to be guaranteed. Economic Accessibility means that food must be affordable. Individuals should be able to afford food for an adequate diet without compromising on any other basic needs, such as school fees, medicines or rent. Physical Accessibility means that food should be accessible to all, including to the physically vulnerable, such as children, the sick, persons with disabilities or the elderly, for whom it may be difficult to go out to get food. Access to food must also be guaranteed to people in remote areas and to victims of armed conflicts or natural disasters, as well as to prisoners.⁸

The Right to be Free from Hunger is enshrined in article 11, paragraph 2, of the ICESCR.

It is the only right recognized as fundamental under International Law.

In General Comment 12 on the Right to Food, the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights provides that: “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. (…) 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 hunger⁹. The right to be free from hunger, therefore, is defined as the right to have access to the minimum essential food which is sufficient and adequate to ensure everyone is free from hunger and physical deterioration that would lead to death.

Three types or levels of obligations on state parties have been formulated in order for them to implement the right to adequate food, as well as other human rights, at the national level.

The Government has the obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the right to food without any discrimination. “The obligation to respect existing access to adequate food requires parties not to take any measures that result in preventing such access”.¹⁰

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.¹¹

The obligation to fulfill (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. 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 fulfill (provide) that right directly. This obligation also applies for persons who are victims of natural or other disasters.”¹²

It is made clear that the obligation to fulfill the realization of the right to food implies that the State Parties to the ICESCR must identify vulnerable groups and develop appropriate strategies to ensure at a short, medium and long term the ability of these vulnerable groups to realize and enjoy their right to food by their own means.¹³ Even if states face severe resource constraints, caused by economic adjustment, economic crisis or other factors, the vulnerable population has the right to be protected through social programmes aimed to improve access to adequate food and satisfy nutritional needs. All States have the obligation to immediately enforce the core content of the right to food, which means, that every person must, at least, be free from hunger.

Apart from the legal obligations of specific character, such as obligation to respect, protect and fulfill, State Parties have obligations of general character, which are general obligations of immediate application.

The obligation to take steps towards the progressive realization of the right to food using the maximum of resources available, in accordance with Article 2.1 of the Covenant, with the Committee’s General Comment No.3 and No.12, contains the legal duty to move as expeditiously as possible towards the realization of the right to food. This provision includes legislative means as well as administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial remedies. It is necessary to note that the State should not adopt regressive measures that affect the realization of the right to food.

The obligation to ensure non-discrimination implies that States should immediately guarantee that no individual is a victim of discrimination with regard to the right to food or productive resource on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, age, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic position, birth or other status with the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the equal enjoyment or exercise of economic, social and cultural rights constitutes a violation of the Covenant.¹⁴

The obligation to ensure international cooperation entails the obligations of developed states to support other, less developed states that lack sufficient resources in their fulfillment of the obligation to fulfill the right to food. Thus, a violation of the right to food occurs when a State does not comply with its obligations to take steps, not to discriminate, to respect, protect and fulfill the right, causing damage to a person and the damage can be attributed to the State.¹⁵ The damage refers to elements of the core content of the right to food : adequacy, availability and access.

The right to food is also recognized in other International Conventions protecting specific groups, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979)¹⁶,the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)¹⁷ and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006)¹⁸.

The right to food is also recognized in some regional instruments, such as the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, known as the Protocol of San Salvador (1988),¹⁹ the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (1990)²⁰ and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (2003)²¹.

Several non-legally binding international human rights instruments, recommendations, guidelines, resolutions or declarations, are relevant to the right to food too. They are also called soft-law instruments. They are accepted by States and serve as guidance for the implementation of the right to food.²²

In India there is a deeply rooted tradition of reflecting of the fundamental right to food of human beings and on consequences of violating the right to food. The Indian concept of Dharma stresses the importance of growing and sharing food. Atharva Veda²³ states: “All have equal rights in articles of food and water.”

Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation, once said: “Without food it is difficult to remember God and hunger eats into the ethos of culture” .²⁴

India is an active member of the United Nations and is a State Party to International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Hence there is an obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the right to food for every citizen of India. The Indian Constitution does not expressly recognize the fundamental right to food. However, comparable human right provisions are found in the Articles of the Fundamental Rights as well as the Directive Principles of State Policy.

In India, if a person attempts to commit suicide for lack of food, steals food or other articles for getting food, or begs, it is an offence. All such acts for getting food are punishable under law. If he is sentenced for committing such offence, he is provided with minimum basic necessities i.e.food, shelter, clothes in the prison. Should society encourage the commission of such offences or should it provide food as a concomitant to the right to life, which is a fundamental right? The Supreme Court has interpreted the whole issue of the right to life and has made it a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The State has also accepted this responsibility²⁵.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides the fundamental right to the protection of life and personal liberty. This Article mandates the State to ensure the right to life of citizens. This includes the right to live with dignity with at least two decent meals a day. Judiciary has also interpreted Article 21²⁶ to include right to food as a fundamental right.

In Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala²⁷, a landmark judgment, the larger Bench discussed the concept of the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution which cannot be amended. In this case, Mathew J. observed that the object of the people in establishing the Constitution was to promote justice (social and economic), liberty and equality. The modus operandi to achieve these objectives is set out in Parts III and IV of the Constitution. While discussing the other aspects, he observed that freedom from starvation is as important as the right to life.

In Kishen Pattnayakvs. State of Orissa,²⁸ the petitioner wrote a letter to the Supreme Court bringing to the Court’s notice the extreme poverty of the people of Kalahandi in Orissa where hundreds were dying due to starvation and where several people were forced to sell their children. The letter prayed that the State Government should be directed to take immediate steps in order to ameliorate this miserable condition of the people of Kalahandi. This was the first case specifically taking up the issue of starvation and lack of food.

In this judgment, the Supreme Court took a very pro-government approach and gave directions to take macro level measures to address the starvation problem such as implementing irrigation projects in the State so as to reduce the drought in the region, measures to ensure fair selling price of paddy and appointing of a Natural Calamities Committee. None of these measures actually directly affected the immediate needs of the petitioner, i.e. to prevent people from dying of hunger. More importantly, the Supreme Court did not recognize the specific right to food within this context of starvation.

According to the Supreme Court of India, “Right to life guaranteed in any civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter”. These are basic human rights known to any civilized society. All civil, political, social, and cultural rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention or under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without these basic human rights.²⁹

This progressive interpretation of the right to life by the Supreme Court means that in India the Government has a constitutional obligation to take steps to ensure to all individuals a dignified life, with adequate food.

In Shantisar Builders v Narayanan Khimala Totame, the Court held that basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three – food, clothing and shelter. The right to life is guaranteed in any civilized society. That would take within its sweep, the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to a decent environment and reasonable accommodation to live in.³⁰

In Dena Nath vs. National Fertilizers Ltd.³¹, the Court observed that the enforcement of the provisions to establish a canteen in every establishment under Section 16 is to supply food to workmen at the subsidized rates as the right to food is a basic human right.

In PUCL vs. Union of India³², the Court held that right to food is a fundamental right of all citizens, and ordered that the country’s gigantic food stocks should be used without any delay to prevent hunger and starvation. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2001 was filed as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 contending violation of Articles 21 and 47³³. Various interim orders were passed from time to time directing the authorities 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. While considering the ICDS (Integrated Child Development Scheme) that intends to provide supplementary food to children of the age group 0–6 years and to the pregnant woman, the Court, by its order dated 17.9.2001, observed that a lot more deserves to be done in the field to ensure that nutritious food reaches those who are undernourished or malnourished or others covered under the scheme. The Court further directed that, the Anganwadi Centres through which the ICDS is implemented, shall supply nutritious food/supplement to the children, adolescent girls and pregnant and lactating women under the Scheme for 300 days in a year.

In this case, the Supreme Court has made it the duty of every State and Union Territory to ensure that no one dies from starvation or malnutrition. This implies that people who are too poor to buy food should be guaranteed a minimum means of subsistence by the government, either through direct food aid or access to employment. The Court directed the States to ensure that all shops linked to the Public Distribution System are functioning. It also ordered the States to implement food-for-work programmes, a Mid-day Meal Scheme and the Integrated Child Development Services within a definite time-frame.

Bombay High Court held that death of the child due to malnutrition amounts to violation of article 21 of the constitution by the State Government.³⁴

In Kapila Hingorani vs. State of Bihar, hundreds of employees of state-owned corporations, public undertakings or other statutory bodies in the State of Bihar died due to starvation, or committed suicide owing to acute financial crises resulting from non-payment of remuneration for a long time. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court, it held that the State cannot escape its liability when human rights problems of such a magnitude involve starvation deaths. While deciding the case, the Court referred to Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 and the 12 Misconceptions About the Right to Food (FIAN) and approved that human beings have a right to food and that hunger is violation of human rights. The Court held that lack of access to food is in violation of the human right to food, and issued various directives to ensure that no starvation deaths occur. The government companies/public sector undertakings, being part of the State, would be constitutionally liable to respect the life and liberty of all persons in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State Government of Bihar thus, had a constitutional obligation to protect the life and liberty of the employees of the government-owned companies/corporations who are the citizens of India. While carrying on trade or business the State must fulfill its constitutional obligations. It must oversee the protection and preservation of the rights as adumbrated in Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A. The Court also observed that India is a welfare State. Having regard to the Constitutional provisions adumbrated in the Constitution of India, and in particular, Part IV thereof laying down the Directive Principles of the State Policy, and Part IV-A laying down the Fundamental Duties, they are bound to preserve the practice of maintaining human dignity.³⁵

In Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. vs. Reserve Bank of India, the Court quoted Article 25 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and held that right to life includes the right to live with basic human dignity with the necessities of life such as nutrition, clothing, food, shelter over the head, facilities for cultural and socio-economic well being of every individual. Article 21 protects the “right to life”. It guarantees and derives therefrom the minimum needs for existence, including a better tomorrow.³⁶

The right to food or in general the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are defined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution as Directive Principles of State Policy, which are guidelines to the Central and State Governments of India for framing laws and policies. The provisions are not enforceable by any court, but the principles laid down therein are considered as fundamental in the governance of the country, making it the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws to establish a just society in the country.

Following are the Articles under the Directive Principles, which are relevant to the right to food:

According to Article 37 of the Constitution, it is the duty of State to apply the principles laid down in Directive Principles in making laws although the provisions contained in the Directive Principles (Part IV) shall not be enforceable by any court. States hall take various steps to minimize the inequalities in income, and endeavor to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities under Article 38 (2) of the Constitution.

Article 39 provides for right to an adequate means of livelihood equally to men and women and Article 39 (A) deals with free legal aid and to ensure that justice is not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The State is also required to take steps for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of under served want under Article 41 of the Constitution. Article 42 deals with just and human conditions of work and for maternity relief. Article 43 deals with a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of social and cultural opportunities. Article 45 provides for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years.

Article 46 provides for the promotion of educational and economic interest of the weaker sections of the people and also protection from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.

According to Article 47 it is the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health.

It is important to note that the international obligations of the Government are particularly relevant for the promotion of the justifiability of the right to food in India, because the Supreme Court stated that all national courts must apply them when they decide on human rights violations. According to the Supreme Court, national courts must interpret domestic laws in accordance with the international obligations of the Government³⁷, and they must base their decisions directly on international human rights law when it provides a better protection for the victims.³⁸

This means that in India, national courts have to ensure that the Government respects its international obligations to respect, protect and fulfill the right to food, without any discrimination. When they are faced with a complaint from victims of violations of the right to food, national courts must interpret domestic laws in accordance with these obligations, and they should apply these obligations directly when they have to decide if the right to food is violated, and which remedies/relief are the most appropriate one for the victims.³⁹

India can be quoted as one of the best examples in the world in terms of the justifiability of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to food. Under the Constitution of India, Public Interest Litigation is permitted to protect the basic human rights of the most Vulnerable. Although the right to food is not directly justiciable, its inclusion in the Directive Principles of State Policy is important because it serves to guide the interpretation of Fundamental Rights, including the right to life protected by Article 21.⁴⁰

For the Supreme Court of India, right to life protected by Article 21 includes the right to water⁴¹ and the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head⁴². This progressive interpretation of the right to life by the Supreme Court means that in India the Government has a constitutional obligation to take steps to ensure to all individuals a dignified life, with adequate food.

In order to prevent hunger and malnutrition in the country, since Independence, the Government of India has adopted many food-based schemes and food assistance programmes. India has the largest food schemes in the world⁴³. Some important food subsidy programmes are Public Distribution System (PDS) and Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS)⁴⁴. In addition, there are minor programs run by the States with financial contribution from the Central Government.

In Sept 2013,the National Food Security Bill 2013 was passed by both the Houses of Parliament in India. The National Food Security Act, 2013 is a law enacted by Parliament to provide for subsidized food and nutritional security to the people, 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. This law aims to provide subsided food grains to approximately two-thirds of India’s population.

The features of this Act are as follows:

i. The government will provide food entitlement to 75% of the population in rural India and 50% of the population in cities.
ii. Each eligible household will get 5 kg of food grain per person per month.
iii. The grains will be available at Rs. 3/2/1 per kg of rice /wheat /coarse grains.
iv. Entitlement of the existing Antyodaya Anna Yojana Households to be protected at 35 kg per household per month.
v. Anganwadis to provide age-appropriate meals to children aged between 6 months and 6 years.
vi. Mid-day meal scheme will provide food to children aged between 6 years and 14 years.
vii. Breastfeeding to be promoted for children below 6 months.
viii. State Food Commissions to be created that will monitor and evaluate the implementation of the Act as well as redress grievances.
ix. Central and State Governments will undertake PDS reforms.
x. The Central Government will provide food grains (or, failing that, funds) to State Governments, at prices specified, to eligible households.
xi. Provision for penalty on public servant or authority, to be imposed by the State Food Commission, in case of failure to comply with the relief recommended by the District Grievance Redressal Officer.

The Act does not specify criteria for the identification of households eligible for PDS entitlements. Central Government has let the State Governments decide their own criteria for identifying the beneficiaries of the Food Security Act. Failure to define the beneficiaries is a shortcoming of the Act .This Act refers to food standards generally, but does not provide any detail of the nutritional levels to be met.

The right to food is an integral part of a vision of a world without hunger, where every child, woman and man can feed himself or herself in dignity. It is a human right formally recognized by the great majority of States. While there is consensus about the vision, States have been slow inputting this human right into practice. For any right to food action to be taken at country level, one basic requirement is adequate information and assessment of the right to food situation. If the government does not know which people are food insecure and vulnerable, and why they are deprived of their right to food, no remedial action can be determined and effectively implemented to deal with the situation.

Finally, States should certify that human rights in general, and the right to food in-particular, are taught in schools and that training programs are offered to citizens and officials with primary responsibility for the realization of the right to food in urban and rural areas alike.⁴⁵

It is abundantly clear that the Supreme Court of India is leaving no stone unturned in interpreting various provisions of the Constitution to protect the right to food, which is a basic human right, by taking into account the changing conditions and purposes, so that democracy in real form is maintained. The phrase “right to life” is given a wider meaning so as to serve the needs of the society. Now, the right to food has become an inviolable part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This is in conformity with the culture of India.⁴⁶ The Indian concept of Dharma (religion) lays extraordinary emphasis on growing and sharing food in abundance. Atharvaveda ensures that all have equal rights in articles of food and water.

Lack of food for human beings would undoubtedly generate problems of law and order and, in any case, the freedoms contemplated in the Constitution would be meaningless.

Food Security Act is a good initiative but not a sufficient measure. It is important that people being targeted are aware of their entitlements. Information regarding the programmes needs to be clearly communicated through the media, counseling and other methods. Since each state is different in terms of absolute and relative poverty, State- wise indicators may be formulated. Special efforts have to be made in selection of beneficiaries of the Food Security Act.
The Right to Food is not just a basic Human Right; it is also a basic human need. Therefore, as responsible persons we should pressurize the Government to enforce Right to Food effectively.

^•Assistant Professor, V.M. Salgaocar College of Law, Miramar, Goa.
¹FAO. 2005. Jacques Diouf in Foreword to the Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security, p. iv. Rome.
²Alston, P, 1984, p. 32.
³Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights General Comment 12.The right to adequate food (article 11) (12 May 1999),
⁴The Right to Food Report by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Mr. Jean Ziegler, (7 February 2001), paragraph 14
⁵Characteristics of the Right to Food are clarified in General Comment No. 12 (1999) on the right to adequate food, adopted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
⁶Committee, General Comment 12, paragraph 9
⁷United Nations “Right to Food “ (fact sheet no 34 ) at 2
⁸Ibid at 3
⁹Committee, General Observation 12, paragraphs 14, 17
¹⁰Committee, General Comment 12, paragraph 15; Introduction to the Right to Food Guidelines.
¹¹Maastrich Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights(Maastricht Guidelines), paragraph 18.
¹²Ibid, para. 15
¹³FAO, “Safety Nets and the Right to Food,” in FAO, 2006, pp. 5-24.
¹⁴Ibid, para 18
¹⁵Ibid, para 17: “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. In determining which actions or omissions amount to a violation of the right to food, it is important to distinguish the inability from the unwillingness of a State party to comply. Should a State party argue that resource constraints make it impossible to provide access to food for those who are unable to secure such access by own means, the State must demonstrate that every effort has been made to utilize the resources at its disposal in an effort to meet, as a matter of priority, those minimum obligations.”
¹⁶The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women recognizes the right of pregnant and lactating women to nutrition in article 12 (2) in the context of maternity protection
¹⁷The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes the right of children to adequate nutrition in article 24 (2) (c) and (e) in the context of the right to health and in article 27 (3) in the context of the right to an adequate standard of living
¹⁸The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognizes the right to food in article 25 (f) in the context of the right to health and in article 28 (1) in the context of the right to an adequate standard of living and social protection
¹⁹The Protocol of San Salvador recognizes the Right to Food in Article 12. It also addresses it in article 17 in the context of the protection of the elderly
²⁰The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child recognizes the right of children to nutrition in article 14 (2) (c), (d) and (h) in the context of the Right to Health and health services.
²¹The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa recognizes the right to food in article 15. It also addresses the right of pregnant and breastfeeding women to nutrition in article 14 (2) (b)
²²FAO,Extracts from International and Regional Instruments and Declarations, and other authoritative texts addressing the Right to Food, FAO Legislative Study 68 (Rome, 1999).
²³A sacred text on Hinduism
²⁴Voluntary Guidelines on Right to Food, Agriculture &Rural Development 2/2006
²⁵Voluntary Guidelines on Right to Food by M.B. Shah,2006 (24,25 )
²⁶Art 21 of the Indian Constitution : “No person shall be deprived of life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”.
²⁷(1973) 4 SCC 225 at 875, p.1700
²⁸AIR 1989 SC 677
²⁹Chameli Singh & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1996 (2) SCC549
³⁰(1990) 1SCC 520
³¹(1992) 1SCC 695
³²People’s Union for Civil Liberties v.Union of India &Ors, (AIR 2003 SC 2363)
³³PUCL v UOI (SC 2001) Writ Petition No. 196/2001.p. 48
³⁴AIR 2007 (NOC) 113 (Bom).
³⁵(2003) 6 SCC 1
³⁶(1992) 2 SCC 343 at 388
³⁷Jolly George Verghese v Bank of Cochin, (AIR 1980 SC 913)
³⁸Sheela Barse v Secretary, Children’s Aid Society, AIR 1987SC 870.
³⁹“Right to Food Report India “- editorial, (R-13,FIAN,Oct 2007) at 47
⁴⁰“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.
⁴¹Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751.
⁴²Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi and others, AIR 1981SC 746
⁴³Antyodaya Anna Yojana (2000) for poorest of the poor, the Annapurna Scheme (1998) provide 10kgs of free food grain to destitute poor, the Mid-Day Meal Scheme (MDMS-1995) for all primary school children, the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS – 1975) for children under six and pregnant and lactating women; National Maternity Benefit Scheme, the National Old Age Pension Scheme, the National Family Benefit Scheme, the Food for Work Scheme Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana, (SGRY) (2001), National Employment Guarantee Scheme (2005) provides 100 days of employment at minimum wages.
⁴⁴Public Distribution System provides 35 kilograms of subsidized food grains per months.
⁴⁵Christophe Golay “Right to Food and Access to Justice”- (FAO Rome 2009) At 61
⁴⁶Justice M. B Shah “Voluntary guidelines on Right to Food” (Agriculture & Rural Development 2/2006) at 26