The Indian Supreme Court acknowledges the Right to as a Human Right Life without would result in some or hy should the be has a written Constitution which provides considered a human right? The for the Fundamental of its citizens. the other form of Wanswer to this question is, hu- Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees man beings or animals cannot survive «Protection of life and personal liberty».It . Liberty cannot without food. In India, if a person at- provides that «No person shall be de- be there to a person tempts to commit suicide for lack of prived of his life or personal liberty except food, it is an offence; if he steals some according to procedure established by having an empty food or other articles for getting food, it law.» The phrases «Protection of Life» and stomach. The is an offence; begging is also an offence. «Personal Liberty» have called for inter- All such acts for getting food are punish- pretation several times since the Consti- individual’s able under the law. If he is sentenced for tution came into force. Similarly, Article 23 committing such an offence, he is provid- gives protection against exploitation. It will have no meaning if ed with the minimum basic necessities, prohibits traffic in human beings and beg- the State fails to i.e. food, shelter and clothes, in the pri- gars and other similar forms of forced son. Should society encourage the com- labour and makes any contravention to provide adequate food mission of such offences or should it pro- this an offence punishable in accordance vide food as a concomitant to the right to with the law. or food articles. The life, which is a fundamental right? The Apart from the Fundamental Rights Indian Constitution obvious answer is «Yes» to the latter part enshrined in the Constitution, Part IV of of the question. The Supreme Court has the Constitution provides for Directive provides «right to life» interpreted the whole issue of the right Principles of State Policy which are re- to life and has made it a part of the basic quired to be issued by the State while as a Fundamental structure of the Constitution. The State evolving its policies. For that, Article 38 Right. That right is has also accepted this responsibility. requires the State to secure a social order Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Na- for the promotion of the of the

Voluntary Guidelines on the Right tothe Right Guidelines on Voluntary Food given a wide tion, once said: «Without food it is difficult people, in which justice – social, economic interpretation by the to remember God» and he also stated that and political – shall inform all the institu- eats into the ethos of culture. tions of the national life. Supreme Court so as to Furthermore, the doctrine of self-preser- Another important Article 39 provides vation has to be remembered in its entire- that the State shall direct its policy include «right to food» ty by the civilized society. towards securing that «the citizens – men so that democracy and deprives even a virtuous human being, let and women equally – have the right to an alone a common man, of his good sense adequate means of livelihood». (Undoubt- full freedom can be and prevails upon him to adopt unethical edly, food is not only a means of livelihood or illegal means to keep away the hunger but is a necessity for survival). Further, achieved and slavery in and to preserve his life and that of his Article 43 provides that the State shall any form is avoided. members. This ultimately raises endeavour to secure, by suitable legisla- the question of law and order. It is easy to tion or economic organization or in any say that such persons must be dealt with other way, to all workers (agricultural, under the law and be punished; but it also industrial or other) work, a living wage, has to be said that such acts are carried conditions of work ensuring a decent out under absolute compulsion. In all standard of life and full enjoyment of events, if the basic need for food is not sa- leisure and social and cultural opportuni- tisfied, this can lead to slavery or exploita- ties («living wage» undoubtedly would tion no matter in whose name or in what mean more than a minimum wage). form. That is unalterable human nature. Article 47 provides that the State shall regard raising the level of and the Constitutional Provisions standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among Justice M.B. Shah its primary duties. President This aspect is universally accepted and it The Indian Constitution has a federal National Consumer Disputes Redressal is common view that society must ensure structure and is in consonance with the Commission adequate food supply. India – a Sovereign Fundamental Rights and the Directive Janpath, New Delhi, India Socialist Secular Democratic Republic – Principles of the State Policy, Entry 33 of

24 & rural development 2/2006 Schedule 7 of List III, inter alia, provides One important that with regard to the supply and distri- article in the Indian bution of foodstuffs including oils and oil Constitution seeds, legislation can be passed by the Union as well as by the State. Hence the provides that Constitutional sources for the «right to «Citizens – men and food» are the «protection of life», «per- women equally – sonal liberty», «», «right to have the », «freedom from starvation», adequate means of «right to sustenance», «provision of ade- livelihood». quate nutrition», «improvement of public health», «standard of living», «right to live with human », «payment of mini- mum wages», etc., as provided in the aforesaid Articles. These Articles in the Constitution leave no doubt that it is among the primary duties of the State to take proper steps to, and base its economic policies on ensuring

that there is enough food for all citizens Photo: Wilcke to satisfy their hunger, to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and the improvement of public health. posed the question: What is the true the ground of violation of their rights Against this background, the Indian Su- scope and ambit of the right to life guar- under Articles 19 and 21. In that context, preme Court (hereinafter referred to as anteed under this Article? The Court held the Court held that the sweep of the right the «Court»), recognizes the «right to that while arriving at the proper meaning to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and food» as a fundamental right. and content of the right to life, we must far reaching. If the right to livelihood is A description of cases will illustrate the remember that it is a constitutional right not treated as a part of the constitutional legal application of the «right to food»: which we are expounding, and moreover right to life, the easiest way of depriving a it is a provision enacting a fundamental person of his right to life would be to In Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala right and the attempt of the court should deprive him of his means of livelihood to (1973; 4 SCC 225 at 875, pr.1700), a land- always be to expand the reach and ambit the point of abrogation. The Court also mark judgment, the larger Bench dis- of the fundamental right rather than to observed that persons have to eat to live. cussed the concept of the inviolable basic attenuate its meaning and content. structure of the Constitution which can- The Court further held that the funda- In Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khi- not be amended. In this case, Mathew J. mental right to life which is the most pre- malal Totame (1990; 1 SCC 520 at 527, pr.9) observed that the object of the people in cious human right and which forms the the Court held that basic needs of man establishing the Constitution was to pro- ark of all other rights must therefore be have traditionally been accepted to be mote justice – social and economic –, lib- interpreted in a broad and expansive spir- three – food, clothing and shelter.The right erty and equality. The modus operandi to it so as to invest it with significance and to life is guaranteed in any civilized soci- achieve these objectives is set out in Parts vitality which may endure for years to ety. That would take within its sweep the III and IV of the Constitution. While dis- come and enhance the dignity of the indi- right to food, the , the cussing the other aspects he observed vidual and the worth of the human per- right to a decent environment and rea- that «freedom from starvation is as impor- son. The Court observed that the right to sonable accommodation to live in. tant as the right to life». life enshrined in Article 21 cannot be restricted to mere animal existence. It Similarly, in Peerless General Finance and Thereafter, in Dena Nath vs. National Fer- means something much more than just Investment Co. Ltd. vs. Reserve Bank of tilizers Ltd. (1992; 1 SCC 695) the Court physical survival, and held that the right India (1992; 2 SCC 343 at 388) the Court observed that the enforcement of the pro- to life includes the right to live with hu- quoted Article 25 of Universal Declaration visions to establish a canteen in every man dignity and all that goes along with of and held that «Right to establishment under Section 16 is to sup- it, namely, the bare necessities of life such life includes the right to live with basic ply food to workmen at the subsidized as adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter human dignity with the necessities of life rates as the right to food is a basic human over the head and facilities for reading, such as nutrition, clothing, food, shelter right. writing and expressing oneself in diverse over the head, facilities for cultural and forms, free movement and commingling socio-economic well being of every individ- In Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, with fellow human beings are part of the ual». Article 21 protects the «right to life». Union Territory of Delhi (1981, 1 SCC 608 at right to live with human dignity and they It guarantees and derives therefrom the 618, pr.17) the Court held that right to life are components of the right to life. minimum needs for existence, including a means the right to live with basic human better tomorrow. dignity. In the case, the petitioner, a British In Olga Tellis & Ors. vs. Bombay Municipal national, who was detained in the Central Corporation & Ors (1985; 3 SCC 545) the Thereafter, in C.E.S.C. Ltd. vs. Subhash Jail, Tihar, in India, contended that her petitioners were living on pavement/ Chandra Bose (1992; 1 SCC 441 at p.462, five-year-old daughter and her sister were slums in the vicinity of their place of work pr.30), the question decided was whether not allowed to have interview with her for and they were forcibly evicted and their employees appointed by contractors more than five minutes in a month. In the dwellings were demolished by officers of whose wages were being paid through context of the detention order under Arti- the Bombay Municipal Corporation. They such contractors would fall within Section cle 22 and its effect on Article 21, the Court challenged the act of the Corporation on 2 of the 1948 Act. In that context, the

agriculture & rural development 2/2006 25 Court observed that the right to livelihood human rights are designed to achieve this issued various directives to ensure that no springs from the right to life guaranteed object. The right to live guaranteed in any starvation deaths occur. The government under Article 21. The Court referred to the civilized society implies the right to food, companies/public sector undertakings, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, water, a decent environment, education, being part of the «State», would be con- the International Convention on Econom- medical care and shelter. These are basic stitutionally liable to respect the life and ic, Social and which recog- human rights known to any civilized soci- liberty of all persons in terms of Article 21 nize certain needs, which include the right ety. All civil, political, social, and cultural of the Constitution of India. The State to food, clothing, housing, education, the rights enshrined in the Universal Declara- Government of Bihar, thus, had a constitu- right to work, leisure, fair wages, decent tion of Human Rights and the Convention tional obligation to protect the life and working conditions, social security, the or under the Constitution of India cannot liberty of the employees of the govern- right to physical or mental health, protec- be exercised without these basic human ment-owned companies/corporations tion of their , as an integral part of rights. who are the citizens of India. While carry- the right to life. The Court also held that ing on trade or business the State must the Preamble and Part IV reinforce them In People’s Union for Civil vs. fulfill its constitutional obligations. It compendiously as socio-economic justice, Union of India & Ors. (2004; 12 SCC 108), must oversee the protection and preser- bedrock to an egalitarian social order. The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2001 was vation of the rights as adumbrated in Arti- right to social and economic justice is thus filed as a Public Interest Litigation under cles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A. The Court also a fundamental right. Article 32 contending violation of Articles observed, The States of India are welfare 21 and 47. Various interim orders were States. Having regard to the constitution- In P.G. Gupta vs. State of Gujarat (1995; passed from time to time directing the al provisions adumbrated in the Constitu- Supp 2 SCC 182 at 184, 1) the Court ob- authorities to see that food is provided to tion of India, and in particular Part IV served that the protection of life assured the aged, infirm, disabled, destitute wo- thereof laying down the Directive Princi- under Article 21 has given an expanded men, destitute men who are in danger of ples of the State Policy, and Part IV-A lay- meaning of the right to life. It is settled starvation, pregnant and lactating wo- ing down the Fundamental Duties, they law that all the related provisions under men and destitute children, especially in are bound to preserve the practice of the Constitution must be read together cases where they or members of their maintaining human dignity. and given the meaning of widest ampli- family do not have sufficient funds to pro- tude to cover the variety of rights which vide food for them. While considering the Conclusion go to constitute the meaningful right to ICDS scheme (Integrated Child Develop- life. The Court also adverted to Article 11(1) ment Scheme) that intends to provide of the International Covenant on Econom- supplementary food to children of the age It is abundantly clear that the Supreme ic, Social and Cultural Rights which laid group 0–6 years and to the pregnant Court of India is leaving no stone un- down that the States parties to the woman, the Court, by its order dated turned in interpreting various provisions Covenant recognize the «right of everyone 17.9.2001, observed that a lot more of the Constitution to protect the «right to an adequate standard of living for him- deserves to be done in the field to ensure to food» a basic human right, by taking self and for his family, including food, that nutritious food reaches those who are into account the changing conditions and clothing and housing, and to the continu- undernourished or malnourished or others purposes, so that democracy in real form ous improvement of living conditions». covered under the scheme. The Court fur- is maintained. The Court, from time to

Voluntary Guidelines on the Right tothe Right Guidelines on Voluntary Food And held that to the poor, settlement with ther directed that the Anganwadi Centres time, injects flesh, blood and vitality into a fixed abode and right to residence guar- through which the ICDS is implemented, the skeleton of the words used in differ- anteed by Article 19(1)(e) remain more a shall supply nutritious food/supplement ent Articles of the Constitution, and gives teasing illusion unless the State provides to the children, adolescent girls and preg- colour and content to the expressions them the means to have food, clothing nant and lactating women under the made therein, and also provides it with and shelter so as to make their life mean- Scheme for 300 days in a year. the skin of living thought. ingful and worth living with dignity. It is The phrase «right to life» is given a wider also observed that food, shelter and cloth- In Kapila Hingorani vs. State of Bihar meaning so as to serve the needs of the ing are minimal human rights. (2003; 6 SCC 1) hundreds of employees of society. Now, the right to food has become state-owned corporations, public under- an inviolable part of the basic structure of Thereafter, in Chamoli Singh & Ors. vs. takings or other statutory bodies in the the Constitution. This is in conformity State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (1996; 2 SCC State of Bihar died due to starvation, or with the culture of India. The Indian con- 549 at) the Court, dealing with the chal- committed suicide owing to acute finan- cept of Dharma (religion) lays extraordi- lenge to acquisition proceedings, wherein cial crises resulting from non-payment of nary emphasis on growing and sharing one of the contentions was that on ac- remuneration for a long time. When this food in abundance. Atharvanaveda en- count of acquisition the owner would be fact was brought to the notice of the Su- sures: «All have equal rights in articles of deprived of his land which is his only preme Court, it held that the State cannot food and water». Further, one of the source of livelihood under Article 21 of the escape its liability when human rights prayers is: «Saha Navavatu. Saha Nau Bhu- Constitution, held that protection of life problems of such a magnitude involve naktu. Saha Viryam Karavavahai» («May guaranteed by Article 21 encompasses starvation deaths. While deciding the He (God) protect us both together; may within its ambit the right to shelter in case, the Court referred to Article 11 of the He nourish us both together; may we order to enjoy the meaningful right to life. International Covenant on Economic, work conjointly with great energy»). The Court further observed that in any Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 and the We have to try to achieve the said goal, organized society, the right to live as a «12 Misconceptions About the Right to because survival without food is not pos- human being is not ensured by meeting Food (FIAN)» and approved that human sible. Lack of food for human beings only the animal needs of man. It is se- beings have a right to food and that would undoubtedly generate problems of cured only when he is assured of all facili- hunger is violation of human rights. The law and order and, in any case, the free- ties to develop himself and is freed from Court held that lack of access to food is in doms contemplated in the Constitution restrictions which inhibit his growth. All violation of the human right to food, and would be meaningless.

26 agriculture & rural development 2/2006