Court Orders

Supreme Court hearings on the right to food (PUCL vs Union of India and others) have been held at regular intervals since April 2001. Though the judgement is still awaited, interim orders have been passed from time to time. On this page you will find the summaries of these orders organised according to the scheme they pertain to. For the full text of these orders see here.






“Umbrella” Orders

While most of the interim orders concern specific schemes (e.g. ICDS or the Public Distribution System), some of them apply “across the board” to all the relevant schemes. We shall refer to these orders as “umbrella orders”. We have already discussed some umbrella orders in Section 1, notably those relating to lines of accountability. Other important umbrella orders include the following:

  1. Responsibility for compliance: Chief Secretaries of the concerned states “shall be held responsible” for any “persistent default in compliance with orders”.
  2. Accountability to Gram Sabhas: “The Gram Sabhas are entitled to conduct a social audit into all Food/Employment schemes and to eport all instances of misuse of funds to the respective implementing authorities, who shall on receipt of such complaints, investigate and taken appropriate action in accordance with law.”
  3. Access to information: “The Gram Sabhas are empowered to monitor the implementation of the various schemes and have access to relevant information relating to, inter alia, selection of beneficiaries and the disbursement of benefits.”
  4. Dissemination of Court orders: Chief Secretaries have been directed “to translate and permanently display” the orders dated November 28th, 2001 and May 8th, 2002 “on all the Gram Panchayats, school buildings and fair price shops”. The Central Government is to give “wide publicity” to these orders through All India Radio and Doordarshan.
  5. Schemes not to be discontinued: “No scheme covered by the orders made by this Court…shall be discontinued or restricted in any way without the prior approval of this Court.”
  6. Full utilization of grain quotas: “We direct all the State Governments to forthwith lift the entire allotment of foodgrains from the Central Government under the various Schemes and disburse the same in accordance with the Schemes.”
  7. Jurisdiction of High Courts in the Right to Food Case: It is important to note here that since the Supreme Court passed these landmark orders, a number of cases have been filed in various High Courts across the country. These writ petitions were filed not only by right to food activists and citizens concerned with the denial of entitlements to poor people in their respective states, but also by vested interest groups (like contractors) who were adversely affected by the Supreme Court orders. In some cases (notably in Rajasthan and Delhi), the High Courts refused to entertain these petitions since the matter was sub-judice in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then, in a significant order dated XXX in the case YYY, passed an order which settled this issue of jurisdiction of the High Courts in this case. The Supreme Court allowed High Courts to entertain petitions on the “right to food case”, and directed that High Courts could entertain Writ Petitions on the right to food and deal with them appropriately.

top

Integrated Child Development Services

Background

ICDS is the only major national programme that addresses the needs of children under the age of six years. It seeks to provide young children with an integrated package of services such as supplementary nutrition, health care and pre-school education. Because the health and nutrition needs of a child cannot be addressed in isolation from those of his or her mother, the programme also extends to adolescent girls, pregnant women and lactating mothers.

These services are provided through ICDS centres, also known as “anganwadis”. Today there are 8.44 lakh anganwadis in the country, covering 5.8 crore children in the age group six months to six years. This is less than half of all children in the zero to six age group. The coverage of ICDS is therefore far from universal. Further, the quality of ICDS services is very low in most states. The Supreme Court orders on ICDS are essentially aimed at achieving “universalisation with quality” within a reasonable time frame.

Supreme Court Orders

Here again the crucial order goes back to November 28th, 2001, when the Supreme Court directed the government to “universalize” ICDS:

  1. We direct the State Governments/Union Territories to implement the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) in full and to ensure that every ICDS disbursing centre in the country shall provide as under:
    1. Each child up to six years of age to get 300 calories and 8–10 grams of protein;
    2. Each adolescent girl to get 500 calories and 20–25 grams of protein;
    3. Each pregnant woman and each nursing mother to get 500 calories & 20–25 grams of protein;
    4. Each malnourished child to get 600 calories and 16–20 grams of protein;
    5. Have a disbursement centre in every settlement.

This order, however, received very little attention for several years. Virtually nothing was done to implement it. In April 2004, several marathon hearings on ICDS were held in the Supreme Court and detailed orders were issued, followed by further orders on October 7th, 2004. This was followed by a landmark judgement regarding the ICDS scheme on December 13th, 2006. However, before discussing the December 13th order, we shall look at a few key directions of the October 7th, 2004 order. These are as follows:

  1. The Supreme Court directed the Government of India to increase the number of anganwadis from 6 lakh to 14 lakh habitations, and to “file within three months an affidavit stating the period within which it proposes to increase the number of anganwadi centers (AWCS) so as to cover the 14 lakh habitations.”
  2. “All the State Governments/UTs shall allocate funds for the ICDS on the basis of one rupee per child per day, 100 beneficiaries per AWCS and 300 days feeding in a year, i.e. on the same basis on which the centre makes the allocation.”
  3. All SC/ST habitations should have an anganwadis “as early as possible”. Until the SC/ST population is fully covered, all new anganwadis should be located in habitations with high SC/ST populations.
  4. “All State/UTs shall make earnest effort to cover the slums under the ICDS.”
  5. ICDS services should never restricted to BPL families (“BPL shall not be used as an eligibility criteria for ICDS”).
  6. “Contractors shall not be used for supply of nutrition in Anganwadis and preferably ICDS funds shall be spent by making use of village communities, self-help groups and Mahila Mandals for buying of grains and preparation of meals.”
  7. ICDS funds provided by the Central Government under the Pradhan Mantri Gramodaya Yojana (PMGY) should be fully utilised by the State Governments. Further these funds should supplement, and not substitute for, ICDS funds provided by the State Governments.
  8. “The Central Government and States/UTs shall ensure that all amounts allocated are sanctioned in time so that there is no disruption whatsoever in the feeding of children.”
  9. “All State Governments/UTs shall put on their websites full data for the ICDS schemes including where AWCS are operational, the number of beneficiaries category-wise, the funds allocated and used and other related matters.”
  10. Local women’s self-help groups and Mahila Mandals should be encouraged to supply the supplementary food distributed in anganwadi centers. They can make purchases, prepare the food locally, and supervise the distribution.

The entitlements of children under six have been further strengthened in the Supreme Court judgement of December 13th, 2006. This landmark judgement, which was the culmination of a long series of Court hearings on ICDS, clearly orders the government to ensure “universalization with quality” in a time-bound manner. The key directions contained in this order are presented below.

  1. Government of India shall sanction and operationalize a minimum of 14 lakh AWCs in a phased and even manner starting forthwith and ending December 2008. In doing so, the Central Government shall identify SC and ST hamlets/habitations for AWCs on a priority basis.
  2. Government of India shall ensure that population norms for opening of AWCs must not be revised upward under any circumstances. While maintaining the upper limit of one AWC per 1000 population, the minimum limit for opening of a new AWC is a population of 300 may be kept in view. Further, rural communities and slum dwellers should be entitled to an “Anganwadi on demand” (not later than three months) from the date of demand in cases where a settlement has at least 40 children under six but no Anganwadi.
  3. The universalisation of the ICDS involves extending all ICDS services (Supplementary nutrition, growth monitoring, nutrition and health education, immunization, referral and pre-school education) to every child under the age of six, all pregnant women and lactating mothers and all adolescent girls.
  4. The order also specifies the monetary allocation to be made per beneficiary under the ICDS scheme. The court instructs all State Governments and Union Territories to fully implement the ICDS scheme by, interalia,
    1. allocating and spending at least Rs. 2/- per child per day for supplementary nutrition out of which the Central Government shall contribute Rs. 1 per child per day.
    2. allocating and spending at least Rs. 2.70 for every severely malnourished child per day for supplementary nutrition out of which the Central Government shall contribute Rs. 1.35 per child per day.
    3. allocating and spending at least Rs. 2.30 for every pregnant women, nursing mother/adolescent girl per day for supplementary nutrition out of which the Central Government shall contribute Rs. 1.15.
  5. Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/UTs are directed to submit affidavits with details of all habitations with a majority of SC/ST households, the availability of AWCs in these habitations, and the plan of action for ensuring that all these habitations have functioning AWCs within two years.
  6. Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/UTs are directed to submit affidavits giving details of the steps that have been taken with regard to the order of this Court of October 7th, 2004 directing that “contractors shall not be used for supply of nutrition in Anganwadis and preferably ICDS funds shall be spent by making use of village communities, self-help groups and Mahila Mandals for buying of grains and preparation of meals”. Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/UTs must indicate a time-frame within which the decentralisation of the supply of SNP through local community shall be done.”
Comments

The Supreme Court orders of April and October 2004 gave a useful wake-up call to the government, as far as the universalization of ICDS is concerned. The universalization of ICDS was included in the National Common Minimum Programme of the UPA Government in May 2004. The National Advisory Council submitted detailed recommendations for achieving “universalization with quality” in October 2004, and some “follow-up recommendations” in February 2005 (see www.nac.nic.in). The expenditure of the Central Government on ICDS was roughly doubled (from Rs. 1,500 crores to Rs. 3,000 crores) in the Union Budget 2005–2006.

The real breakthrough, however, came with the Supreme Court judgement of December 13th, 2006. The specification of a time frame for “universalization with quality” was a major step forward. Some of the provisions of this judgement, such as the principle of “Anganwadi on demand”, also went much beyond the entitlements that were already available under earlier orders.

Having said this, there is a long way to go in ensuring the implementation of these orders. As this booklet comes to completion, there are anticipations of major increases in funding for ICDS in the 11th Plan. However, the proposed allocations remain much lower than what is required to ensure universalization with quality. Also, ICDS remains a much neglected programme and little has been done to improve the quality of services.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court hearings and orders on I have contributed to the growth of a lively campaign on “children’s right to food”. A convention on children’s right to food, held in Hyderabad in April 2006, helped to build a consensus on universalization with quality, and to link this with related issues such as maternity entitlements, women’s right to child care facilities, and social support for breastfeeding. Since the Hyderabad convention, many campaign activities have taken place around the country, from the convening of “Anganwadi Divas” in many villages to Bal Adhikar Yatras and a national gathering (Bal Adhikar Samvad) held in Delhi on December 19th, 2006. The campaign continues.

top

Mid Day Meal Scheme

Background

As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court order of November 28th, 2001 directs State Governments to start providing cooked mid-day meals in primary schools. Every child who attends a government or government-assisted primary school is now entitled to a cooked, nutritious mid-day meal every day.

The provision of cooked mid-day meals in primary schools is an important step towards the right to food. Indeed, mid-day meals help to protect children from hunger (including “classroom hunger”, a mortal enemy of school education), and if the meals are nutritious, they can facilitate the healthy growth of children. Mid-day meals also serve many other useful purposes. For instance, they are quite effective in promoting regular school attendance, and in that respect mid-day meals contribute not only to the right to food but also to the right to education. Mid-day meals also help to undermine caste prejudices, by teaching children to sit together and share a common meal. They reduce the gender gap in school participation, provide an important source of employment for women, and liberate working women from the task of having to feed children at home during the day. Aside from this, mid-day meals can be seen as a source of economic support for the poorer sections of society, and also as an opportunity to impart nutrition education to children. For all these reasons, the Supreme Court order on mid-day meals has been widely welcome, especially among disadvantaged sections of society.

Supreme Court Orders

So far, there have been two crucial Supreme Court orders on mid-day meals: on November 28th, 2001 and April 20th, 2004, respectively. Further orders have been issued from time to time also. The landmark order of November 28th, 2001 clearly directed all State Governments to introduce cooked mid-day meals in primary schools:

“The State Governments/Union Territories to implement the Mid Day Meal Scheme by providing every child in every Government and Government assisted Primary Schools with a prepared mid day meal with a minimum content of 300 calories and 8–12 grams of protein each day of school for a minimum of 200 days.”

This was supposed to be done within six months. But most State Governments took much longer, prompting the Supreme Court to issue stern reminders to them from time to time (e.g. on May 2nd, 2003). A series of important follow-up orders were issued on April 20th, 2004, to speed up the implementation of earlier orders, improve the quality of mid-day meals, and address various concerns raised in the Commissioners’ reports. These orders include the following:

  1. Timely compliance: “All such States and Union Territories who have not fully complied with the order dated November 28th, 2001 shall comply with the said directions fully in respect of the entire State/Union Territory…not later than 1st September , 2004.”
  2. No charge: The meal is to be provided free of cost. Money for the meal is not to be collected from parents or children under any circumstances.
  3. Priority to SC/ST cooks and helpers: “In appointment of cooks and helpers, preference shall be given to Dalits, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.”
  4. Extension to summer vacations in drought-affected areas: “In drought-affected areas, mid-day meal shall be supplied even during summer vacations.”
  5. Kitchen sheds: The Central Government was directed to “make provisions for construction of kitchen sheds” and also to contribute to the cooking costs.
  6. Quality improvements: “Attempts shall be made for better infrastructure, improved facilities (safe drinking water etc.), closer monitoring (regular inspection) and other quality safeguards as also the improvement of the contents of the meal so as to provide nutritious meal to the children of the primary schools.”
  7. Fair quality of grain: The Food Corporation of India (FCI) is to “ensure provision of fair average quality grain” for mid-day meals. Joint inspections of the grain are to be conducted by the FCI and State Governments. “If the food grain is found, on joint inspection, not to be of fair average quality, it will be replaced by the FCI prior to lifting.”
  8. Extension to Class 10: On April 20th, 2004, the Government of India was directed to file an affidavit within three months, “stating as to when it is possible to extend the scheme up to 10th Standard in compliance with the announcement made by the Prime Minister.” In response to this, an affidavit was filed by the Department of Elementary Education (Ministry of Human Resources Development) in 2004, but the Court is yet to examine it.
Comments

In October 2004, the Court noted that some progress had been made with the implementation of earlier orders on mid-day meals. However the feedback received from the States made it clear that implementation was being held up by a lack of funds in many cases. The Court then directed the Central Government to provide financial assistance of “one rupee per child per school day” to meet cooking costs. The Court also clarified that the responsibility to monitor the implementation of the mid-day meal scheme “essentially lies with the Central Government”. Again, the Court stressed the urgency of the situation and directed that “every child eligible for a cooked meal under the Mid-Day Scheme in all States and Union Territories shall be provided with the said meal immediately”.

The Supreme Court orders have led to lively “campaigns” for mid-day meals all over the country. The implementation of these orders has been a long and arduous process, but over time, most State Governments have fallen in line. Today, about 12 crore children are getting a cooked mid-day meal at school every day. However, the quality of mid-day meals remains quite poor in many states: the content of the meal is inadequate, health safeguards are lacking and social discrimination is common. Also, nothing has been done to extend mid-day meals beyond the primary stage. Further action is required to consolidate the gains that have been made and to ensure that mid-day meals live up to their promise.

top

Targeted Public Distribution System

Background

The Public Distribution System (PDS) is a means of distributing foodgrain and other basic commodities at subsidised prices through “fair price shops”. Every family is supposed to have a ration card. In 1997, the PDS became “targeted”: different ration cards were issued to households “Below the Poverty Line” (BPL) and those ”Above the Poverty Line” (APL), and each category has different entitlements. Today, both BPL and APL households are entitled to 35 kgs of grain per month, but the issue price is higher for APL households. In fact, it is so high that most APL households do not buy grain from the PDS. Thus, in practice the PDS is restricted to BPL households. Even in years when the APL prices correspond very closely with the market prices, the APL offtake has remained very low since State Governments are not lifting their APL quotas. The Government of India has now reduced the APL quotas for all States and restricted it to the average of the last three years of APL offtake for that particular State.

In 2001 Antyodaya cards were introduced as a sub-category of BPL cards. However, the Supreme Court later stated that the Antyodaya programme should not be restricted to those with a BPL card (see Section 2.3). Thus, Antyodaya cards have become a separate card, distinct from either BPL or APL. Some households also have other cards, such as Annapurna cards (see Section 2.9).

The PDS is facing many obstacles including widespread leakages and corruption. The Supreme Court has taken notice of this and formed a Central Vigilance Committee on the Public Distribution System in its order dated July 12th, 2006. The CVC (PDS) is chaired by Justice (Retd.) DP Wadhwa with the Commissioner of the Supreme Court, Dr. N.C. Saxena as the Member-Convenor. The Committee is presently looking into the problems that are affecting the proper functioning of the Public Distribution System and exploring remedial measures. The CVC has recently submitted its report (in August 2007), which is expected to be taken up shortly in the Supreme Court.

  1. Identification of BPL families: On November 28th, 2001, the Court directed the State Governments “to complete the identification of BPL families, issuing of cards and commencement of distribution of 25 kgs. grain per family per month latest by January 1st, 2002”. Note that the entitlements of BPL families were subsequently raised from 25 kgs of grain per month to 35 kgs. On the BPL list, see also para 7 below.
  2. Accessibility of ration shops and regular supply of grain: On several occasions, the Supreme Court directed the government to ensure that all ration shops open regularly. For instance, one of the very first interim orders (dated July 23rd, 2001), states: “We direct the States to see that all the PDS shops, if closed, are re-opened and start functioning within one week from today and regular supplies made.” Similarly, an interim order dated May 8th, 2002 states: “The respondents shall ensure that the ration shops remain open throughout the month, during fixed hours, the details of which will be displayed on the notice board.”
  3. Accountability of PDS dealers: The licenses of PDS dealers and shop-keepers should be cancelled if they: “(a) do not keep their shops open throughout the month during the stipulated period; (b) fail to provide grain to BPL families strictly at BPL rates and no higher; (c) keep the cards of BPL households with them; (d) make false entries in the BPL cards; (e) engage in black-marketing or siphoning away of grains to the open market and hand over such ration shops to such other person/organizations”. Further, “the concerned authorities/functionaries would not show any laxity on the subject”.
  4. Monitoring of the PDS: As mentioned earlier, a Central Vigilance Committee has been constituted to investigate the problems affecting the proper functioning of the public distribution system and suggest remedial measures. “For this purpose, the Committee shall, amongst other things, focus on: (a) The mode of appointment of the dealers; (b) the ideal commission or the rates payable to the dealer and; (c) modalities as to how the Committees already in place, can function better. (d) Modes as to how there can be transparency in allotment of the food stock to be sold at the shops.” Aside from this, the Committee was asked to suggest a transparent mode of appointing PDS dealers and ways to make the existing vigilance committees more effective.
  5. Permission to buy in instalments: Arrangements must be made to “permit the BPL household to buy the ration in instalments”.
  6. Awareness generation: “Wide publicity shall be given so as to make BPL families aware of their entitlement”.
  7. BPL list: Orders relating to the “BPL list” are also relevant to the Public Distribution System, since the BPL list is the basis on which BPL and APL ration cards are distributed. These orders are discussed in Section 2.12. Note in particular that (1) the Central and State Governments have been directed to “frame clear guidelines for proper identification of BPL families” in consultation with the Supreme Court Commissioners; and (2) no-one is supposed to be removed from the BPL list until such time as the Court deliberates this matter.
Comments
  1. The Supreme Court orders on the PDS should be read together with the Central Government’s “PDS (Control) Order” of August 2001. This Order contains sweeping directions for holding FPS managers and others accountable, and should itself be read in conjunction with the Essential Commodities Act. Taken together, these three sets of orders (Supreme Court orders, PDS Control Order and Essential Commodities Act) can be used quite effectively to ensure that people get their due.
  2. BPL targeting has attracted widespread criticism. There is much evidence that the “BPL list” is highly unreliable: well-off households often have a BPL card while poor households have an APL card, if they have a card at all. This is partly because the “BPL survey” used for identifying families below the poverty line is fundamentally flawed. This issue has been taken up in Supreme Court hearings from time to time; see Section 2.12 for further discussion.
  3. Orders relating to Antyodaya Anna Yojana and Annapurna (see below) are also relevant to the Public Distribution System, since these schemes are implemented through the PDS.
  4. Since the recommendations of the Central Vigilance Committee shall be first applicable to Delhi and then expanded to the rest of the country, it presents a good opportunity for civil society organisations to give suggestions for improving the PDS.

top

Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana

Background

The initial PUCL petition, submitted in April 2001, argued that assured employment at a living wage is the best protection against hunger. In this and other ways, the right to food is closely connected to the right to work. An important step towards the realisation of the right to work was made in August 2005, with the enactment of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA). As of now, NREGA does not fall within the ambit of the “right to food case”. However, employment issues have figured in the Supreme Court hearings from time to time, especially with reference to Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY), one of the eight food-related schemes covered by the interim order of November 28th, 2001. Note that SGRY is being automatically phased out in Districts where NREGA has come into force—today there are 330 such Districts.

Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) is a centrally-sponsored employment scheme. It was initiated in August 2001, and officially aimed at generating 100 crore person-days of employment each year. According to the official guidelines: “The SGRY is open to all rural poor who are in need of wage employment and desire to do manual and unskilled work in and around his/her village/habitat. The primary objective of the scheme is to provide additional wage employment in rural areas, thereby provide food security and nutritional levels. The secondary objective is the creation of durable community, social, economic assets and infrastructural development in rural areas. While providing employment preference shall be given to agricultural wage earners, non agricultural unskilled wage earners, marginal farmers, women, members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and parents of child labour withdrawn from hazardous occupations, parents of handicapped children or adult children of handicapped parents who want to work for wage employment.”

Supreme Court Orders

Important orders pertaining to SGRY were issued by the Supreme Court on November 28th, 2001, May 8th, 2002, May 2nd, 2003, and April 20th, 2004. These include:

  1. Speedy implementation: Several directions were issued (notably on May 8th, 2002, April 20th, 2004 and October 17th, 2004) to the effect that SGRY should be implemented “expeditiously” by the Central Government and State Governments. In particular funds should be released on time and fully utilised, and SGRY funds should not be “diverted” for other purposes.
  2. Priority groups: “The respondents shall focus the SGRY programme towards agricultural wage earners, non agricultural unskilled wage earners, marginal farmers and, in particular, SC and ST persons whose wage income constitutes a reasonable proportion of their household income and to give priority to them in employment, and within this sector shall give priority to women.”
  3. Doubling of SGRY: On 2nd May 2003, the Court directed the government to “double” the scale of SGRY, in view of drought conditions prevailing in large parts of the country: “The present SGRY system should be expanded, at least doubled, both in terms of allocation of food-grain and cash for the months of May, June, and July”. On 20th April 2004, this direction was extended: “The directions for doubling the food grains as also cash in terms of the order dated 2nd May, 2003 shall be applicable this year also.”
  4. Timely wage payments: Wage payments under SGRY are to be made on a weekly basis.
  5. Ban on contractors: The use of contractors is “prohibited”.
  6. Minimum wages: “The State Governments/UTs are directed to pay minimum wages to the workers under the Scheme.”
  7. Ban on labour-displacing machines: The State Governments were also directed to “stop use of labour displacement machines” under SGRY.
  8. Role of Gram Panchayats: Gram Panchayats are entitled to “frame employment generation proposals in accordance with the SGRY guidelines for creation of useful community assets that have the potential for generating sustained and gainful employment”. Further, “these proposals shall be approved and sanctioned by the Gram Panchayats and the work started expeditiously”.
  9. Social audits: Gram Sabhas are entitled to conduct social audits of SGRY (and indeed of all food-related schemes). On receipt of any complaint of misuse of funds from the Gram Sabhas, the implementing authorities shall “investigate and take appropriate action in accordance with the law”.
  10. Transparency: “Access to all public documents including all muster rolls shall be allowed to such persons who seek such access and the cost of supplying documents shall not be more than the cost of providing copies of the documents.”
Comments

Field reports suggest that most of the above orders are routinely violated in most states. Some specific instances, such as the violation of Court orders on SGRY in Badwani District (Madhya Pradesh), have been taken up by the Commissioners or even referred to the Supreme Court through Interim Applications. But even there, attempts to seek redressal have been partially successful at best.

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 may be an opportunity to make a new start as far as employment programmes are concerned. Under this Act, anyone who is willing to do unskilled manual labour at the statutory minimum wage is entitled to being employed on public works within 15 days (subject to a limit of “100 days per household per year”), or failing that, to an unemployment allowance. The Act creates durable legal entitlements, helps labourers to enforce their rights, and includes strong provisions for transparency and accountability. In due course, SGRY is likely to be merged with other employment schemes initiated under the Act.

top

National Maternity Benefit Scheme

Background

This scheme is a timid attempt to introduce “maternity benefits” in India’s social security system. It was introduced in 1995 as part of the National Social Assistance Programme, and later transferred to the Health Ministry. Under NMBS, pregnant women from BPL families are entitled to lump-sum cash assistance of Rs. 500/-, up to two live births. The payment is to be made 8–12 weeks before delivery, but in practice there are long delays, partly due to the complex application procedures. Women are often paid months if not years after delivery, and this defeats the purpose of the scheme. Further, the coverage of this scheme is very low: according to official figures, the number of women who actually received cash payments under NMBS in 2003–2004 was as low as 4.3 lakhs - less than 2% of the total number of births in that year.

Supreme Court Orders
  1. As with other food-related schemes, the Supreme Court order of November 28th, 2001 calls for prompt implementation of the National Maternity Benefit Scheme.
  2. As with NOAPS, this scheme is not to be discontinued or restricted in any way without the permission of the Supreme Court.
  3. On May 9th, 2005, the Supreme Court refused to allow the Government of India to phase out NMBS and provide maternity benefits under a new scheme, Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY). The reason given for this refusal is that it is not clear whether the new scheme preserves all the benefits available under NMBS, as the government claims. The Court requested the government to submit further information on JSY, and asked the Commissioners to “examine the matter in depth and file a report”. “Meanwhile, the existing National Maternity Benefit Scheme will continue.”
Comments

This scheme is in bad shape. The procedures are complicated, the quantum of benefits is small, payments are often delayed for months if not years, and the coverage is very limited. The government seems to be keen to phase out this scheme and replace it with Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), but JSY itself has many flaws. In fact, the main focus of JSY is not maternity entitlements but the promotion of institutional deliveries and safe motherhood. Also, it is not clear whether this new scheme preserves the earlier NMBS entitlements, in particular maternity benefits in cases of a delivery at home. This issue is yet to be fully deliberated in the Supreme Court.

top

National Family Benefit Scheme

Background

This scheme, like NOAPS, is part of the National Social Assistance Programme. It provides for lump-sum cash assistance of Rs. 10,000/- to BPL families on the death of a primary breadwinner, if he or she is aged between 18 and 65 years. A “primary breadwinner” is a household member whose earnings contribute substantially to household income. The amount of assistance is Rs. 10,000/- for accidental deaths and Rs. 5,000/- in the case of death due to natural causes. The payment is to be made to the “surviving head” of the household, after a local enquiry.

Supreme Court Orders
  1. As with other food-related schemes, the Supreme Court order of November 28th, 2001 calls for prompt implementation of the National Family Benefit Scheme. BPL families are to be paid Rs. 10,000/- within four weeks through the local Sarpanch when the breadwinner dies.
  2. As with NOAPS, this scheme is not to be discontinued or restricted in any way without the permission of the Supreme Court.
  3. None of the benefits should be withdrawn from this scheme as a result of this order till further orders, by any of the State Governments or Union Territories.
Comments

So far, the National Family Benefit Scheme has not received much attention in the Supreme Court hearings and interim orders. While field reports as well as official data point to glaring gaps in the functioning of this scheme, it has been somewhat out of focus in the “right to food case” as well as in the Right to Food Campaign.

top

National Old Age Pension Scheme

Background

This scheme was launched in 1995 to provide “old age pensions” to senior citizens (aged 65 years or more). It is part of the National Social Assistance Programme, which also includes two other schemes: the National Family Benefit Scheme (NFBS) and Annapurna.

The National Old Age Pension Scheme (NOAPS) is primarily addressed to old men and women with no assured means of subsistence, but the eligibility conditions vary from state to state, and so does the coverage of the scheme. The pensions are given in cash, with the Central Government contributing Rs. 75/- per month, often supplemented with a contribution from the State Government (e.g. in Rajasthan the old age pension is Rs. 200/- per month). The Central Government enhanced its contribution to Rs. 200/- per month, in March 2006. One of the main problems with this scheme is its small coverage: there are plenty of applications, but funds are limited (the official limit is 50% of the number of BPL individuals above the age of 60). The fact that only those who are not “supported” by other family members are eligible for a pension further restricts the outreach of the programme.

In 2002–2003, NOAPS was “transferred” to the State Governments (along with other NSAP schemes): from a “Centrally Sponsored Scheme”, it became part of the State Plans. This is meant to be a relatively minor administrative reform, whereby the Central Government gives a cash grant to the State Government (under “Additional Central Assistance”) and lets it run the scheme, instead of co-implementing the scheme with the State Government. In practice, however, this “transfer” tends to have an adverse impact in several ways. First, the cash grants disbursed by the Central Government are often “diverted” by State Governments for other purposes, or released after long delays. Second, after a scheme is transferred to the State Plans, the Central Government stops monitoring it. Third, the transfer has also terminated the payment of administrative charges by the Central Government, and State Governments often fail to make up for this. Aside from NOAPS, other schemes under the National Social Assistance Programme (i.e. Annapurna and the National Family Benefit Scheme) have also been transferred to the State Plans.

Supreme Court Orders
  1. State governments have been directed to complete the identification of persons entitled to pensions under NOAPS, and to ensure that the pensions are paid regularly.
  2. Payment of pensions is to be made by the 7th day of each month.
  3. The scheme must not be discontinued or restricted without the permission of the Supreme Court. This actually applies to all the schemes covered by the interim order of November 28th, 2001 (see Section 2.1). However it is particularly relevant to schemes such as NOAPS, because these schemes are quite “fragile”: there are no strong lobbies to defend them, and they often come under the financial axe when State Governments face a financial crisis.
  4. The NOAPS grants paid by the Central Government to the State Governments under “Additional Central Assistance” should not be diverted for any other purposes.
Comments

Even though the enhancement of the contribution of the Central Government for the pension amount was announced in the Budget Speech of the Finance Minister in March 2006, the funds reached the states only by September. Many states therefore did not enhance the pension amounts for the financial year 2006–2007. There are many problems in this scheme including exclusion and inclusion errors in the identification of beneficiaries. Since the programme covers only 50% of all old persons who have a BPL card, many people who are otherwise eligible end up being left out. Many old people are forced to walk long distances to collect their pensions from the Block headquarters and often do not get it on time—with the pensions reaching, say, once in six months rather than monthly. However, this is the only programme that reaches out in any significant manner to old people living in poverty.

top

Antyodaya Anna Yojana

The aim of this scheme, launched in 2000, is to provide special food-based assistance to destitute households. These households are given a special ration card (an “Antyodaya card”), and are entitled to special grain quotas at highly subsidised prices. Today, Antyodaya cardholders are entitled to 35 kg of grain per month, at Rs. 2/- per kg for wheat and Rs. 3/- per kg for rice. Initially, the Antyodaya scheme covered 1 crore families, but this was later expanded to 1.5 crore families and then 2 crore families. Currently, around 40% of all BPL families are included in the Antyodaya category.

Supreme Court Orders
  1. Orders related to the Public Distribution System also apply to Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY), since AAY is a component of the PDS. For instance, the order of July 23rd, 2001, directing State Governments to ensure regular supply of grain to the ration shops applies to AAY also.
  2. The State Governments were requested to consider providing grain free of cost to those who are so poor that they are unable to lift their quota, even at the highly subsidised AAY prices.
  3. The Central Government “shall formulate the scheme to extend the benefits of the Antyodaya Anna Yojana to the destitute section of the population”.
  4. On May 2nd, 2003, the Supreme Court declared that all households belonging to six “priority groups” would be entitled to Antyodaya cards. More precisely, the Government of India was directed “to place on AAY category the following groups of persons:
    1. Aged, infirm, disabled, destitute men and women, pregnant and lactating women, destitute women;
    2. widows and other single women with no regular support;
    3. old persons (aged 60 or above) with no regular support and no assured means of subsistence;
    4. households with a disabled adult and assured means of subsistence;
    5. households where due to old age, lack of physical or mental fitness, social customs, need to care for a disabled, or other reasons, no adult member is available to engage in gainful employment outside the house;
    6. primitive tribes.
  5. Possession of a BPL card is not necessary for inclusions in the AAY category. The Central Government was directed to issue guidelines to this effect.
  6. In April 2004, the Court asked the Central Government to direct the State Governments to “accelerate the issue of Antyodaya cards especially to primitive tribes”. Further, “the guidelines issued to State Governments shall be implemented in letter and spirit”.
  7. In the order dated October 17th, 2004, the State Governments were directed to complete the identification of AAY families and the distribution of AAY cards “by the end of the year”, and to begin the distribution of grain to AAY cardholders “immediately”. Further, the AAY cardholders “should not be made to pay, directly or indirectly, any amount other then what they are liable to pay for the supply taken”.
Comments

The most important order here is the order of May 2nd, 2003, whereby six “priority groups” are entitled to Antyodaya cards as a matter of right. However, the government is yet to devise (and implement) an effective procedure to ensure that all households in these priority groups are identified and covered under AAY. In the case of (so-called) “primitive tribes”, the task is relatively easy, and in some states at least Antyodaya cards have been distributed to most families in this group. The other groups, however, have no simple means of claiming an Antyodaya card as a matter of right.

top