LexSWARAJ ABHIYAN (V) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 8 S.C.R. 338 SWARAJ ABHIYAN (V) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ Petition (C) No. 857 of2015) JULY21,2017 [MADAN B. LOKUR AND N. V. RAMANA, JJ.) National Food Security Act, 2013: ss.14, 15, 16, 28 and 29 - Implementation of - By the State C Governments - Sought by.filing writ petition u/Art. 32 of Constitution - Held: The Act, a social justice and social welfare legislation, is not being implemented as it should be - Centre, States and the Union Territories are required to ensure a transparent and accountable Grievance Redressal Mechanism through notified rules and D designate appropriate and independent officials as the District Grievance Redressal Officers - While it is theoretically possible to have a statutory commission or body, function as a State Food Commission, but there might be several practical difficulties in the actual working of one statutory commission performing two functions under two d_ifferent statutes - Therefore, the Centre is E directed to commend to the States and Union Territories to constitute and establish a fully functional State Food Commission - Another body or Commission can be appointed as State Food Commission only when it is absolutely necessary and unavoidable and as a last resort - The requirement of social audit is salutary as mandated by F s.28 - Therefore, Centre to ensure establishing of social audit machinery - Vigilance Committees as mandated by s.29, have not been set up, and hence the Centre is directed to commend to the States and Union Territories to constitute and establish a functioning Vigilance Committee - Constitution of India - Arts. 32 and 256. G H Issuing directions, the Court HELD: Per Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The draft Model Rules circulated by the Central Government need serious consideration by the State 338 SWARAJ ABHIYAN (V) v. UNION OF INDIA 339 Governments and Union Territories. As advised by the Central A Government, the grievance redressal machinery should be independent and its functioning should be transparent. As long as this is achieved, it hardly matters that some officer of the Government is appointed as the District Grievance Redressal Officer. However, as emphasized in the letter dated 14'h March, B 2017 of the Central Government, it would be appropriate if an officer dealing with delivery of entitlements under the National Food Security Act (NFS Act) is not appointed or designated as the District Grievance Redressal Officer since he or she might not be able to entertain a complaint against his or her own functioning. In view of the circulation of the draft Model Rules, C it is now really up to the Central Government and the Governments of the States and Union Territories to ensure that a transparent and accountable Grievance Redressal Mechanism is put in place through notified rules so that the advantages of the NFS Act can be passed on to those who need the benefit of D this social welfare legislation. [Para 301(352-D-G) 2. Even after prodding by the Central Government and prodding by Supreme Court, many of the State Governments have not yet established a working State Food Commission, this is a clear indication that there is hardly any commitment to the implementation of the NFS Act. In the letter dated 14'h March, E 2017 it has been mentioned that the States and Union Territories intending to designate any existing statutory commission to function as the State Food Commission should ensure that the provisions of Section 16 of the NFS Act are complied with. While it is theoretically possible to have a statutory commission or body, F function as a State Food Commission, provided that statutory commission or body is constituted and established in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the NFS Act, there might be several practical difficulties in the actual working of one statutory commission performing two disparate functions under two different statutes. This is more than likely to compromise the G efficiency of that statutory commission or body with the result that the beneficiaries of the multifarious functions of the statutory commission or body would suffer at both ends. This is hardly conducive to good administration and reduces the importance of H 340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 8 S.C.R. A a basic right to wholesome and nutritious food particularly for women and children which is really the objective of the NFS Act. The importance of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.