Introduction

The case of Dipika Jagatram Sahani v. Union Of India And Others (2021 INSC 23) was adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on January 13, 2021. This public interest litigation (PIL) was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the closure of Anganwadi Centres across the nation amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner, Dipika Jagatram Sahani, sought the reinstatement of these centres to ensure the provision of supplementary nutrition to vulnerable groups, including pregnant women, lactating mothers, adolescent girls, and children up to six years of age. The closure of these centres raised significant concerns regarding the fulfillment of the State's obligations under the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the broader objective of achieving holistic development for children.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Ashok Bhushan, acknowledged the critical role of Anganwadi Centres in providing essential nutritional support under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme. The closure of these centres due to the pandemic was deemed to infringe upon the fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution, particularly the right to health and the right to live with dignity under Article 21. The Court directed the Union of India and all States and Union Territories to reopen Anganwadi Centres outside containment zones by January 31, 2021, unless specific directives from the State Disaster Management Authority opposed such action. Additionally, the Court mandated adherence to the nutritional standards outlined in Schedule II of the National Food Security Act, 2013, and emphasized the necessity of implementing effective monitoring and supervision mechanisms to ensure beneficiary compliance and redressal of grievances.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court referenced its earlier judgments, notably the PUCL v. Union of India (2001), where it had underscored the importance of ensuring the right to food for vulnerable sections through the ICDS Scheme. Additionally, the Court drew upon the directives issued in subsequent judgments (2004, 2007, 2019) that fortified the implementation of the right to food and nutritional security. These precedents collectively established a judicial stance that the government bears a constitutional obligation to safeguard the nutritional needs of women and children, reinforcing the enforceability of the ICDS Scheme.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning was grounded in the constitutional mandate to ensure social and economic justice, with specific emphasis on Articles 21 and 47. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which has been expansively interpreted to include the right to health and well-being. Article 47, part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, obligates the State to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living. The Court reasoned that the closure of Anganwadi Centres directly contravened these constitutional provisions by impeding access to essential nutritional services. Furthermore, the statutory framework provided by the National Food Security Act, 2013, was pivotal in delineating the obligations of both the Central and State Governments in ensuring food and nutritional security through the ICDS Scheme.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for the implementation of welfare schemes in India. By mandating the reopening of Anganwadi Centres, the Court reinforced the binding nature of the National Food Security Act and the ICDS Scheme's provisions. It set a precedent for holding States accountable for lapses in the provision of essential services, especially during crises. Future cases invoking the right to food and nutrition can rely on this judgment to argue for stringent enforcement of governmental obligations. Additionally, it underscores the judiciary's proactive role in safeguarding the rights of marginalized populations, thereby influencing policy formulation and implementation frameworks.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Anganwadi Centres: Community-based centers in India established under the ICDS Scheme to provide nutritional support, health services, and early childhood education to women and children.
• National Food Security Act, 2013: Legislation aimed at providing subsidized food grains to approximately two-thirds of India's population and ensuring nutritional security.
• Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme: A government program launched in 1975 to address the health, nutrition, and development needs of young children, pregnant women, and lactating mothers.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): A legal mechanism in India that allows individuals or groups to file petitions in court seeking enforcement of public interests, particularly in cases affecting marginalized communities.
• Containment Zones: Designated areas where restrictions are imposed to control the spread of diseases, such as COVID-19, affecting the operation of public services like Anganwadi Centres.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Sahani v. Union of India serves as a reaffirmation of the State's duty to ensure the provision of essential services aimed at safeguarding the health and nutrition of vulnerable populations. By directing the timely reopening of Anganwadi Centres and enforcing compliance with established nutritional standards, the Court has reinforced the legal framework that underpins social welfare schemes in India. This decision not only addresses the immediate challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic but also sets a lasting precedent for the protection and advancement of the right to food and nutrition. It underscores the judiciary's pivotal role in upholding constitutional mandates and ensuring that governmental initiatives translate into tangible benefits for the populace, thereby contributing to the overarching goals of social justice and human dignity.