In its order, the bench recorded that there is no legal breach in the policy decision of the UT administration to exclude meat products from the midday meal.
There is a right of a midday meal to children in schools run by government and local bodies but there is no right to the menu, the Supreme Court held on Thursday, as it dismissed an appeal against the Lakshadweep administration’s 2021 decision to drop meat from the midday meal.
According to a bench of justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi, what would be served in midday meal is the policy decision of a government, which cannot be regulated by a court of law because such matters “would not come within the scope of judicial review”.
“Where is the vested legal right of having only this (meat) food? We are a court of law, not doing value judgments of the government’s decision. You have to appreciate the limits of our role. The Union territory is not asking you to change your food habits. They are changing what they serve you in schools in midday meals. Under the Food Security Act, there may be a vested right for midday meals, but not the menu,” observed the bench.
It is not within a court’s domain to decide as to what would be the choice of food for children of a particular region nor did it have expertise to find out whether the other food being served in place of meat is being liked or not.
In its order, the bench recorded that no legal breach has been pointed out in the policy decision of the UT administration to exclude meat products from the midday meal in its schools. “It is not the court’s domain as to what food should be eaten by children of a particular region. There is no scope of interference by courts of law on that count, which would have to accept administrative decisions in that regard unless some outstanding arbitrariness is pointed out,” stated the order.
The court further took note of a submission made by additional solicitor general KM Nataraj that the administration has retained non-vegetarian items like egg and fish, which the law officer said, is available in abundance in the said islands.
“We do not find any error in the judgment of the Kerala high court in dismissing the public interest litigation. So far as the midday meal is concerned, the administration has retained non-vegetarian items like egg and fish...What is being questioned in this appeal is primarily a policy decision of the administration and no breach of any legal provision has been pointed out. It is not within the court’s domain to decide as to what would be the choice of food for children of a particular region. There is no scope of guesswork by the law courts on that count,” the order added.
The Kerala high court had in September 2021 dismissed the PIL which challenged the decision to drop meat from school meals as well as the decision to close down dairy farms in the UT.
Advocate Ajmal Ahmed, a resident of Kavaratti, challenged this judgment before the top court, contending that UT administration’s move infringed upon the ethnic culture, heritage, food habits, and the rights of the residents under Articles 19 and 300A of the Constitution. He also said that dairy farms being run by the animal husbandry department were being closed to attack the food habits of the islanders being followed from time immemorial.
The UT administration, however, cited the geographical conditions of the islands and non-availability of green fodder as reasons for shutting the dairy farms, adding it cannot be forced to continue carrying out such activities. The administration added that there was no prohibition against private persons from running dairy farms on the island.
The National Food Security Act, 2013, guarantees a midday meal to children aged 6 to 14 years in government-aided schools and those run by local bodies.
(Courtesy:- Hindustan Times, 15 September 2023)
No comments:
Post a Comment