GK Question

Answer: True

PUCL case (2001 onwards) right to food: (a) Context: Petition regarding starvation deaths in Rajasthan during drought; broader issue of State's obligation to ensure food security, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Right to food is part of right to life under Article 21; State has positive obligation to ensure food security, especially for vulnerable groups, (ii) Used continuing mandamus: Court kept petition pending, issued periodic directions to monitor implementation of food security schemes, (iii) Directed implementation of: (a) Public Distribution System (PDS), (b) Mid-day Meal Scheme in schools, (c) Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), (d) Annapurna scheme for elderly, (c) Applications: (i) Food security schemes: Court directions strengthened implementation of PDS, mid-day meals, ICDS, Annapurna, (ii) Monitoring mechanisms: Commissioners appointed to monitor implementation, report to Court, ensure accountability, (iii) Legislative follow-up: National Food Security Act, 2013 operationalized right to food through statutory entitlements, (d) Subsequent developments: (i) NFSA implementation: Court continues to monitor NFSA implementation, address gaps in coverage, delivery, (ii) Pandemic response: During COVID-19, Court directed expansion of food security measures for migrants, vulnerable groups, (e) Rationale: (i) Dignity: Food essential for human dignity, survival; Article 21 requires State to protect vulnerable from starvation, (ii) Positive obligation: State must take affirmative steps to realize right to food, not just refrain from violation, (iii) Social justice: Food security advances substantive equality, protects marginalized from hunger, deprivation, (f) Illustrates transformative constitutionalism: Article 21 interpreted to impose positive obligations on State for food security; continuing mandamus enables judicial enforcement of socio-economic rights through sustained State action, monitoring.