The PUCL claimed that starvation deaths had occurred despite excess grain stocks leading to a violation of the right to food; Court found right to life imperilled; orders for implementation of famine code, food schemes and midday meals in schools.
Colin Gonsalves, lawyer for PUCL, has stated that ‘It is one of the most successful cases we have done; it had had a nationwide effect. After the judgment … the right-to-food campaign has taken off, with hundreds of groups joining the campaign. There has been some improvement with government programmes. In fact, if we had not done the case, the entire programme would have closed down. Take the mid-day meal scheme … for children in schools. The programme had virtually closed down [but after] the order, the mid-day meal has been restarted in six to eight states.’ (http://www.geocities.com/righttofood/orders/interimorders.html). As of 2012, Supreme Court hearings on the right to food (PUCL vs Union of India and others, Civil Writ Petition 196 of 2001) have been held at regular intervals since April 2001. Though the judgement is still awaited, interim orders have been passed from time to time. (http://www.hrln.org/hrln/right-to-food/pils-a-cases/1262-2012-pucl-vs-union-of-india-and-others-civil-writ-petition-196-of-2001.html#ixzz2z4F4T893)
The case has been significant in not only catalyzing an Indian-wide movement for implementation of various food schemes but it has also become widely discussed in the global right to food movement and in research on right to food.
“Since 2001, the Supreme Court’s interim orders have served to define gradually and with increasing detail, India’s constitutional right to food.[1] These decisions in the PUCL case have been significant in at least three ways: by recognizing the right to food as a fundamental right within the meaning of the right to life; by spelling out in detail the entitlements that make up the right food and making the same enforceable; and finally, by creating a mechanism for the continuous monitoring and reporting of the implementation of the Court’s decisions.” (Gauri and Poorvi, 2014).
Claimants
People’s Union for Civil Liberties
81 Sahayoga apartments Mayur Vihar – I Delhi 110091, India
91-11-2250014(telefax)
91-11-2256931(fax)
91-11-2492342
Email:national@pucl.org
Web:www.pucl.org Lawyers for the petitioners included Colin Gonsalves of SLIC:
Colin Gonsalves
Currently at the Human Rights Law Network – HRLN (http://www.hrln.org/hrln/)