Representational Image  |  Photo Credit: IANS
New Delhi: This affidavit was filed in the Supreme Court by Sudhanshu Pandey, Secretary Dept of Food and Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, for which Attorney General of India KK Venugopal had to face several uncomfortable questions from the bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana today.
The affidavit said: “While Government respects the concern and suggestions of the petitioner, however, Hon’ble court may appreciate that the constitution provides for a mechanism through legislature and executive, to address such policy challenges for which govt is both alive as well as sensitive. Indeed, thanks to the progress made by the nation since independence and the comprehensive policies and steps taken by both state and central governments, there have been no starvation deaths in the country in recent times, even during adverse situations like the pandemic”.
Supreme Court’s questions on hunger deaths drew a near blank from the Union government.
EARLIER IN THE DAY REPORTED BY TIMES NOW
The Supreme Court in a significant direction on Tuesday directed the Centre to formulate in consultation with states and other stakeholders a ‘national model scheme’ to set up community kitchens across the country to combat hunger and also sought the latest data on starvation deaths.
CJI Ramana said the scheme should consider extending additional logistics, resources and food grain to the states. The bench also sought the latest data from the Centre on starvation deaths.
CJI Ramana told Attorney General K K Venugopal: “With states governments not reporting any starvation death, is it to be understood there is no starvation death in the country? The government of India should give us data on starvation deaths, latest information. Ask your officer to give us information…”.
CJI Ramana while hearing a slew of pleas seeking the formulation of a community kitchen policy to avoid starvation deaths remarked that “so many freebies are announced by political parties during the election time ..but now it is election time and I do not want to comment much”. SC was hinting that political parties must spare a thought about pressing issues of hunger and starvation in various parts of the country too.
Court asked the states to give data to the SC in two weeks about malnutrition, starvation deaths and related issues.
CJI told Attorney General KK Venugopal: “Our focus is that people should not suffer from hunger die of hunger. You have to discuss with your officers to come up with a nodal scheme. We have explained the intention of this court and now you need to explore a solution. So far as logistics is concerned it can be worked out with states. We are not on larger issues of malnutrition, etc Hunger is to be satisfied. Everyone is admitting there’s an issue, Have a humanitarian approach. Ask your officers to apply their minds.
When AG KK Venugopal told the court that there are already 134 schemes in this regard and no more funds can be diverted to the state, and already states are being given food grain, the bench asked the Centre to consider providing additional food grain. AG said this can be considered.
The court adjourned the matter by two weeks and said states can file an additional affidavit on malnutrition, hunger and other issues.
The court pulled up the govt for relying on a 2015-2016 report for starvation deaths. Are you saying there are no starvation deaths in the country except for 1? Can we depend on that statement?
Chief Justice told AG who appeared for the centre that we are not saying that you are not doing anything to deal with hunger or starvation but consider a model scheme nationally. “Draft a scheme, finalise it and then leave it to states”.
AG replied that the Centre will consider the court’s suggestions. As of now, we have 134 schemes and we are already giving food grains to states. We cannot divert any money from existing schemes. AG added then we can make a scheme with this 2 % additional foodgrain that will be made available to states.
EARLIER HEARING
Apart from the slow progress, the court on the last occasion unhappy over the fact that the Union government’s affidavit was filed by an under-secretary despite the court’s directive that only officers at the secretary level and above are competent to file affidavits in the Supreme Court.
“How can an under-secretary file an affidavit? Despite the judgment of this court, you let an under-secretary file this. Tomorrow, some desk officer will file it. Is this how you want to treat the Supreme Court?” the bench had asked additional solicitor general Madhvi Divan.