Judicial Accomplishment towards International Obligation
Dr. Ghulam Yazdani ((Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi))
Even after 67 years of Independence, the people of India particularly poor and vulnerable groups experiencing everyday for the basic necessities of life. As there exists problem of poverty and hunger on top of all. This paper is focuses on determining the challenges faced in realizing the Right to Food in India as a fundamental right along with other legislative and judicial developments as an obligation that India has to fulfill without which ones survival is at stake. It further analyze how the right to food in terms of equality and justice as envisaged in the Indian Constitution as well as other provisions of law applicable in India.
INTRODUCTION: In the life of all human beings food is necessary for their existence. Every human being is entitled to have a right to be free from hunger. It is equally needed to have access to safe and nutritious food also. As a matter of law, the Right to Food has, at least in formal terms, been accorded universal recognition as a human right. The food is one of the most indispensable human rights which is directly connected to the right to life. The right to food protects the right of all human beings to be free from hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition. The right to food does not imply that governments have an obligation to hand out free food to everyone who wants it, or a right to be fed.
The Sixty Seven years of India’s independence has witnessed immense growth and development. India as a developing nation has achieved several milestones for the promotion of social welfare. In spite of reaching great heights the nation faces the basic hurdle of providing the basic necessities of life to its citizens. In spite of various promises of equality and justice provided under the Indian Constitution either in the form of Directive Principles of the State Policy or the Fundamental Rights provided to its Citizens, the country has failed to take care of the basic right i.e. Right to Food of its millions of citizens even today.
Dominance hunger has been passively tolerated, and is barely noticed in public debates and democratic polity. Recently it was reported in the United Nation Annual Report on Hunger, the country had the maximum number of people who are hunger in the whole world at 194 million although there were about 563.25 lakhs tonnes of food grains with the Central Pool of the Food Corporation India. According to Amartya Sen, even after independence the people of the country still afflicted by endemic hunger. Since India is often considered to be one of the great success stories in tackling the food problem, the belief in success has to be scrutinized in the light of the grim reality that we can observe. The right to food is among the basic economic and social rights that were meant to lay the foundations for participatory democracy in India. However, in practice it has been largely ignored in public policy since independence.
The ‘right to food’ and its variation, is a human right protecting the right for people to feed themselves in dignity, implying that sufficient food is available, that people have the means to access it, and that it adequately meets the individual’s dietary needs. The right to food protects the right of all human beings to be free from hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition.
Before independence, the concept of Ram Rajya was first conceptualized by the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi. When we will have independence,we will have Ramrajya,Gandhiji announced. When he was asked about the ideal State, he talked about Ram Rajya. Which means by using the Ram Rajya, Gandhiji implied an ideal Rajya (without being communal) where values of justice, equality idealism, renunciation and sacrifice are practised. In the said Ram Rajya, there was no capitalism, no unemployment, no casteism and prevalence of complete socialism.Unfortunately the countrymen are still not been able to see the whole idea of being in Ram Rajya.
Right to Food under Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (Relevant provisions)
In the UDHR it is declared that everyone has right to a standard living adequate for the health and well being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care. Apart from the UDHR and other International Instruments, different Constitutions of the World have also recognized.
Article 25 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 declares that everyone has to right to a standard living adequate for the health and well being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care Article 25 of UDHR.
In the poverty, the hunger and malnutrition are always the consequence there of. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts, with spiritual sensitivity and moral maturity, that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should treat one another in spirit of brotherhood. This profound position is central to the charter of the United Nations, which affirms its faith in fundamental human rights, and in the dignity and worth of the human person. Any person anywhere and every person everywhere is heir to the progressive promise for the human dignity and the basic right. Margret Vidar in its research conducted in 2006 at United Nations University mentioned in its research paper that “The Right to Food has been recognized and affirmed at the international level on many occasions. But to what extant is the international recognition reflected at the national level?
Right to adequate food includes the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of human beings. It was originally included in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights promulgated in 1948 and was more explicitly formulated in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), approved in 1966 and enforced since 1976. Article 25 of the Declaration lays down that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social service, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Similarly, Article 11 of ICESCR states the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living including food. A number of other International Agreements, Conventions and laws also deal with the right to food for special groups, for instance, the Convention on the Right of the Child. They may also protect the right to food indirectly, as in the case of Convention on the Protection of Migrant Workers, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and other ILO conventions for the purpose. The ICESCR has so far been ratified by 142 countries, but the acceptance of the right to food as legally binding, rather than broadly guiding, principle is not universal. Some key countries have still to ratify the ICESCR and few have amended national legislation to suit the Convention. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAQ) has an obligation enshrined in its Constitution to assist member states in raising the levels of nutrition and standards of living and thus ensuring humanity’s freedom from hunger.
Article 11, para 2, recognises the right of everyone to be free from hunger as a fundamental right. Pursuant to Article 11.1 of the Covenant, States recognise the right of every one to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. While pursuant to Article 11.2 recognises that more immediate and urgent steps may be needed to ensure the fundamental right to freedom from hunger and malnutrition. On the request of the Member States during the 1996 World Food Summit, the general comment of the Committee aims to identify some of the principles important issues in relation to the right to adequate food for a better definition of the rights relating to food in Article 11 of the Covenant and to give particular attention to the Summit Plan of Action in monitoring the implementation of the specific measures provided for in Article 11 of the Covenant.
The General Assembly of the UN convened the World Food Conference at Rome on 5-6 November 1974. The Conference adopted 22 resolutions and the Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition. It was affirmed that the participating states would make full use of the United Nations system in the implementation of the declaration and other decisions taken at the conference especially the conference called upon the people of the world to work together to bring about the end of the age-old scourge of hunger. The resolution and the Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition so adopted at the Conference as endorsed by the General Assembly on 17th Dec. 1974. In the preamble to the Declaration it has been noted that there exists a grave food crisis, which afflict the people of the developing countries.
There is an obligation cast by a Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition in the many countries where half of humanity starve without shelter and clothing The Universal declaration must, therefore, be immediately implemented and the dichotomy between the haves and the have-nots must be eliminated to achieve peace and order in the human world. The Declaration, which fundamentally opposes starvation and homelessness, has been one of the international instruments slumbering for decades. At the international level, there have been world summits reiterating the commitment to eliminate hunger and achieve universal food security. The United Nations Millennium Development Goals and the World Food Summit also emphasized the commitment to halve the number of undernourished in the world by 2015.
The Right to Food vis-a-vis Fundamental Right: Indian Perspective: ‘The Right to Food’ as a “Fundamental Right” though the Indian Constitution has not initially recognised it. In spite the Constitution of India was adopted on 26th November, 1949 but only after 1950, has been a progressive Constitution which aimed at ensuring all its citizens social, economic and political justice, equality, dignity, yet ‘Right to Food’ does not find any substantial place among the Fundamental Rights. The Constitution of India is the not only socio-legal document but parent law upon which all other enactments are legislated in form of Central Act or State Act. Therefore, any law to be valid in Indian Territory must be within the constitutional framework. While the Indian Constitution has recognized the civil and political rights as directly justifiable fundamental rights, the economic, social and cultural rights and thus, the “Right to Food” is included in the certain provisions of Constitution but not as a separate right.
Provisions under the Constitution: The Indian Constitution indirectly refers to the right to food under the right to life of Article 21.The Right to Food is inherent to a life with dignity. Article 21 should be read with Articles 39(a) and 47 to understand the nature of the obligation of the State in order to ensure the effective realization of this right.
Article 39(a) of the Constitution enunciated as one of the Directive Principles, fundamental in the governance of the country, requires the State to direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. Preamble of our Constitution also guarantees, Social, Economic and political justice to all its citizens. While Article 47 speaks about the fundamental duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people as a primary responsibility.
“Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees a fundamental right to life and personal liberty. The expression ‘Life’ in this Article has been judicially and very sensibly interpreted to mean a life with human dignity and not mere survival or animal existence. In the light of this, the State is obliged to provide for all those minimum requirements which must be satisfied in order to enable a person to live with human dignity, such as education, health care, just and humane conditions of work, protection against exploitation, etc.
India has many international obligations to fulfil the right to food with respect to children and adults. The citizen’s right to be free from hunger enshrined in Article 21 is to be ensured by the fulfilment of the obligation of the State set out in Articles 39A and 47. The reading of Article 21 together with Articles 39(a) and 47 places the issue of food security in the correct perspective, thus making the Right to Food a guaranteed Fundamental Right which is enforceable by virtue of the constitutional remedy provided under Article 32 of the Constitution.”
Although far back in 1981, Supreme Court in Francis Coralie vs. Union Territory of Delhi (this judgment was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pavement Dweller’s case) has categorically held that ‘Right to Life’ includes right to live with human dignity all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter meaning thereby Indian citizens are guaranteed of ‘right to food’ as their fundamental right.
In 1960 and 1982 the Court’s decision was found to be uncertain and contradictory about the right to life. It is evident from the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Right to Life in Article 21 does not include the right to livelihood. After some controversy on that issue the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation has clearly held that right to livelihood is included in the right to life “because no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood”. The right of agriculturists to cultivation is part of their fundamental right to livelihood. But the right to carry on trade or business is not covered by Article 21. Non-revision of pay scales, which are not so low as to deny survival, also does not violate Article 21. Further, upholding the right of the people in hill areas for a appropriate move toward is the Court in State of H.P. v. Umed Ram, held that the right to life in Article 21 “embraces not only physical existence of life but also the quality of life and for residents of hilly areas, access to road is access to life itself”. Right to unpolluted environment and preservation and protection of nature’s gifts has also been conceded under Article 21. This right encompasses wide variety of many other rights such as protection of wild life, forests, lakes, ancient monuments, fauna-flora, unpolluted air, protection from noise, air and water pollution, maintenance of ecological balance and sustainable development. The right to clean environment may have precedence over economic interests of the society. The Court has also observed that life “includes all that give meaning to a man’s life including his tradition, culture and heritage and protection of that heritage in its full measure”. Again, the Court has held that right to life includes the right to “a reasonable accommodation to live in”  and right to shelter, including the necessary infrastructure to live with human dignity. The right to water and a duty on the State to provide clean drinking water to its citizens has also been recognised. But the right to vote is not included in Article 21. Nor has the Court yet held that the right to food is included in Article 21. It has, however, issued directions to the state in ‘Kishen Patnayak v.. State of Orissa’ and ‘PUCL v. Union of India’ to ensure that nobody dies of starvation. A most remarkable feature of this expansion of Article 21 is that many of the non-jusiticiable Directive Principles embodied in Part-IV of the Constitution have now been resurrected as enforceable fundamental rights by magic wand of judicial activitism playing on Article 21 of the Constitution.
An important milestone in clarifying the ‘right to food’ in the Indian context and the obligations of the State to support victims in realizing their ‘right to food’ was the Public Interest Litigation filed by PUCL in April 2001 in Supreme Court under Article 32 of constitution of India on behalf of the people starving from hunger in the State of Rajasthan, while excessive amount of food was rotting in the government storages claiming “Right to Food” as a fundamental right under Article 21, 39A, 47 of the Constitution. In view of the said PUCL petition the first major interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 28.11.2001 focused on eight foods related schemes:
(i) The Public Distribution System (PDS); (ii) Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY); (iii) the National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education, also known as “Mid-day Meal Scheme”; (iv) The Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS); (v) Annapurna; (vi) the National Old Age Pension Scheme (NOAPS); (vii) the National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS); and (viii) National Family Benefit Scheme (NFBS).
The apex Court in the interim order of 28th November 2001 essentially, transformed the benefits of these eight “schemes” into legal entitlements. This means, for instance, that if someone has an Antyodaya card but she is not getting her full quota of 35 kg of grain per month at the official prices (Rs 3/kg for rice and Rs 2/kg for wheat), she can claim her due as a matter of right, by going to Court if necessary. In the case of mid-day meals, the interim order went further than just giving a legal protection to existing entitlements. It also directed the government to replace monthly “dry rations” of grain with daily, cooked mid-day meals.
In a much skewed justice appeared as a basic idea of this order was that, the government should be held accountable at the very least, to what it claims to be doing to protect the right to food, i.e. implement these food-related schemes.
The PUCL petition came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on several occasions in these many years since 2001 till today. Lastly, the PUCL petition came up before the Supreme Court on 07.01.2013 in which the final report summarizing the recommendations of the “Final Justice Wadhwa Central Vigilance Committee Report” was received pursuant to the Supreme Court’s earlier order dated 17.09.2012. The said report discussed about all the food related schemes run by the Government of India and bifurcated its recommendations into long term and short term measures so that these could be implemented in proper manner. As a long term objectives two Important steps would be (I) constitution of Civil Supply Corporation In every State and Union Territory and (2) Computerization of whole PDS operations. For short term measures, recommendations could be (i) Identification of beneficiaries Inclusion and Exclusion errors (ii) Storage capacity (iii) Transportation of PDS foodgralns (iv) Viability of Fair Price Shop (v) Accountability and monitoring (vi) Allocation of foodgrain on per unit basis (vii) Vigilance Committee (viii) Complaint Mechanism (ix) Allotment of FPS (x) Awareness of beneficiaries (xi) Vigilance and Enforcement (xii) Functioning of FPS (xiii) Supply of Fortified alta (xiv) Elimination of Bogus and Fake ration cards (xv) Electronic Weightment (xvi) Issuance of ration cards (xvii) Implementation of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order’ dated 08.05.2002 and 02.05.2003 (xviii) Allocation of PDS foodgrain from Centre to States/UTs on the basis of projected population, 2012 (xix) Joint Sampling and (xx) Abolition of APL category (xxi) Special measures for poorest districts in the Country.
‘Justice Wadhwa Committee’ gave several recommendations absolutely as long term and short term remedial measures for implementing the food related schemes sponsored/run by the Government of India with a view to fulfill the constitutional goal of granting fundamental right of right to food to every citizen of our country. The Supreme Court hearings have led to a larger “Right to Food campaign”. The foundation statement of the campaign says “The Right to Food campaign is an informal network of organizations and individuals committee to the realization of right to food in India. Realizing the right to food requires not only equitable and sustainable food systems, but also entitlements relating to livelihood security. We consider that primary responsibility for guaranteeing these entitlements rest with the State. So far, the Right to Food campaign has focused mainly on implementation of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s orders.
This premise underlay various measures provided for in the right to food guidelines which states can adopt to ensure access to justice in the event of violation of right to food.
Ultimately after acceptance of the “Final Report of Justice Wadhwa Central Vigilance Committee Report”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued appropriate directions to the Government of India as well as to the all the State Governments to take appropriate steps for implementing all the schemes in order to secure and guarantee to ‘Right to Food’ to the citizens of this country. In this regard, taking Wadhwa Committee Report as the basis the then Congress’s Government got the National Food Security Act, 2013 passed by the Parliament, the BJP’s Chhattisgarh Government also got the Chhattisgarh Food Security Act, 2012 passed in the State Assembly.
From the deep perusal and analysis of the “Final Justice Wadhwa Committee Report”, it transpires that various orders of Supreme Court as well as Justice Wadhwa Committee report formed the basis of “the Chhattisgarh Food Security Act, 2012” and “the National Food Security Act, 2013”. The Central Food Security Act i.e. “the National Food Security Act, 2013” under Section 3 to 8 and Section 13 guarantees Food security to men, women and children of our country. The identification of eligible households under targeted Public Distribution System (PDS) and other schemes are envisaged in Sections 9 to 11. Further, under Sections 14 to 21, Grievance Redressal Mechanism is enunciated, under Section 16 of the Act, 2013 “State Food Commission” is constituted which is responsible for redressing the grievances of the citizens in case of violation of the Act, 2013. Sections 22 to 26 deals with the Obligation of the Government and local authorities ensuring implementation of the Food related schemes guaranteeing food security to all citizens. Sections 27 to 29 deals with transparency and accountability of the people involved in ensuring implementation of schemes and the Sections 30 & 31 state about the advancing food and nutritional security to the citizens residing in remote hilly and tribal areas.
The Chhattisgarh Food Security Act, 2012 provisions are also on the similar lines. Both the Acts, i.e. the Central Act, 2013 and Chhattisgarh Act, 2012 hence been made in exhaustive manner to ensure the fulfillment of right to food enshrined in Article 21, 39A and 47 of the Constitution of India.
As a matter of right the Food in independent India, has been acknowledged and recognized through the interpretations by the Courts. The same can be viewed from the judicial developments right from Francis Coralie’s case, Pavement, Dweller’s case, Olga Tellis’s Case, Chameli Singh’s case, Gaurav Jain’s case, Kishen Pattnayak’s case and at the end of the day in PUCL’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court appointed ‘Wadhwa Committee’ as an timely action to own its role as the protector of the rights of people..
It is worthwhile to mention that on 07.01.2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted the “Final Report of Justice Wadhwa Central Vigilance Committee Report”, which actually became the basis for the Governments to frame the Food Security Legislation also.
Conclusion and suggestions: In sum, Right to food is part of an overall goal of achieving right to development. This describes what has been the role of our Supreme Court – by interpretation and court decision it has broadened the reach of the Constitution’s provisions; it has included within the range of its beneficent provisions those who were not born when India got independence accompanying. Accordingly, we must be proud of our judges, present and past, who have interpreted and sustained this Constitution, which was framed for the people, most of whom were not alive at that time.That is how all constitutions are run.
The major problem relates to economic access to food self sufficiency has increased at the National Level but not at the household level. The facets of this right shows that the root cause of the world hunger is poverty apart from other causes. So it is indeed very essential that to eliminate hunger, poverty should addressed at the first place because even if the availability of food grain is sufficient than also due to lack of purchasing power poor people cannot have access to food due to their poverty. Hunger is primarily a problem of general poverty, and thus overall economic growth and its distributional pattern cannot but be important in solving the hunger problem.
It is significant to pay attention to employment opportunities, other ways of acquiring economic means, and also food prices, which influence people’s ability to buy food, and thus affect the food entitlements they effectively is also crucial to use the means of specialized delivery of food that particularly helps poor children, such as more extensive use of feeding in the school. This can not only increase the incentive of children to go to school, but also actually make them healthier and less undernourished. The Supreme Court has been judicious in emphasizing the importance of this right to food in many ways. The problems encountered in implementing ‘Right to Food’ include resource constraints, problems of governance and lack of political will, lack of an overall framework for implementation and monitoring; lack of appropriate indicators and benchmarks for monitoring; difference in nature of challenges in rural and urban areas.
We should remember that we have abolished untouchability and outlawed backwardness in the Constitution of India (Article 17). But alas, most of us have not eliminated it from our hearts. We have somehow forgotten our heritage of accommodation and tolerance to ensure this right also needed effective action as it being one of the achievable goals.
 See, Amartya Sen, address made at a public hearing on hunger in India and Right to food, Delhi University, 10th January, 2003.
 “Section 25(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.”
 Margret Vidar, “State Recognition of the Right to Food at the National Level”, Research Paper No.2006/61, P.1 (2006)
 See Ghulam Yazdani and Shahid Ahmed, Human Right, Agricultural De-regulation and Food Security, published in the Poverty and Food Security in India, Problems and Policies (Edited Book by M.S. Bhatt Department of Economics, Jamia Millia Islamia, and Aakar Books, New Delhi (2004) P.182.Also see,www.fao.org.
 See Ghulam Yazdani and Shahid Ahmed, Human Right, Agricultural De-regulation and Food Security, published in the Poverty and Food Security in India, Problems and Policies,Edited by M.S. Bhatt Department of Economics, Jamia Millia Islamia and Aakar Books,New Delhi, P.184;Also see,www.fao.org.
 See,Dr.K.V.Ravi Kumar, Right to food in India-whether a Protection under Fundamental Rights article published in Indian Bar ReviewXXXIX(1)Jan-March,2012 p.39,
 Francis Coralie Vs. Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1SCC 608: AIR 1981 SC 746.
 A.V. Nachane v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 205: AIR 1982 SC 1126; Sant Ram Re, AIR 1960 SC 932.
 Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R. Nandkarni, (1983) 1 SCC 124, 134: AIR 1983 SC 109, where the Court held that right to livelihood is included in Art. 21; Begulla Bapi Raju v. State of A.P., (1984) 1 SCC 66: AIR 1983 SC 1073, where the Court followed the decisions cited in the preceding note holding that right to livelihood is not included in Art. 21.
 Olga Telis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., (1985) 3 SCC 545: AIR 1986 SC 180, 193; Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600: AIR 1991 SC 101; Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Admn., (1992) 4 SCC 99: AIR 1992 SC 789.
 Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. V. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 104; Charan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1997) 1 SCC 151.
 Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1989)4 SCC 155: AIR 1989 SC 1988.
 A.K. Bindal v. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 163, 176.
 (1986)2SCC 68: AIR 1986 SC 847.
 T. Damodhar Rao v. S.O., Municipal Corpn., Hyderabad, AIR 1987 AP 171; Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1987 Supp SCC 487: AIR 1987 SC 2426.
 M.C. Mehta v. UOI, (2004) 12 SCC 118: AIR 2004 SC 4016.
 Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251, 256: AIR 1989 SC 540.
 Shantisrar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame, (1990)1 SCC 520, 527: AIR 1990 SC 630.
 Gauri Shankar v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 349; Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 444.
 Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549; J.P. Ravidas v. Nay Yuvak Harijan Utthapan Society Ltd., (1996) 9 SCC 300.
 Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000)10 SCC 664; A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. M.V. Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62.
 Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India, (1997)6 SCC 1.
 See, Kishen Pattnayak v. State of Orissa, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 258; PUCL v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCALE 484; PUCL v. Union of India, (2003)9 SCALE 835.
 Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, Twelfth Edition, P.172.
 PUCL v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCALE 484;
 PUCL v. Union of India, (2013) 2 SCC 663
 S. Mahendra Dev, Right to Food in India, Paper No.50. (Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Begumpet, Hyderabad).
 Christopho Golay: Right to Food and Access to Justice, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2009. (P. 29)
 (2013) 2 SCC 663