Holding

The NFS Act is not being implemented properly; under Art. 256 the Union may direct States to fulfill its mandatory provisions, and the Court issued comprehensive directions to ensure such implementation while refusing to appoint a Food Commissioner or Ombudsman.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition under Art. 32 challenging the failure of several State Governments and Union Territories to implement mandatory provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFS Act), including grievance redressal officers, State Food Commissions, social audits and vigilance committees. The Court held that the NFS Act, a social‑welfare legislation, is not being implemented as required and that under Art. 256 the Centre may issue binding directions to the States to ensure compliance. It directed the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution to convene meetings with State secretaries, to issue and monitor rules for grievance redressal, to ensure appointment of independent District Grievance Redressal Officers, to constitute fully functional State Food Commissions, to set up vigilance committees and to establish a social‑audit mechanism. The Court declined to appoint a Food Commissioner or Ombudsman, emphasizing cooperative federalism and the constitutional duty of both Centre and States. Consequently, the petition was allowed with specific directions for effective implementation of the NFS Act.

Issues considered

The Centre's power under Art. 256 to issue binding directions to States for implementing a central law.
Whether the mandatory provisions of the NFS Act (ss. 14, 15, 16, 28, 29) have been complied with by the States.
Whether the Court should appoint a Food Commissioner or Ombudsman to oversee implementation.
The adequacy of grievance redressal mechanisms and the independence of District Grievance Redressal Officers.
The necessity of State Food Commissions, vigilance committees and social audits under the NFS Act.

Legislation cited

Comptroller and Auditor General (DPC) Act, 1971
Constitution of Indias. Art. 256, s. Art. 32
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005
National Food Security Act, 2013s. ss. 14, s. ss. 15, s. ss. 16, s. ss. 28, s. ss. 29, s. ss. 38, s. ss. 40

Subjects

National Food Security Actimplementationgrievance redressalState Food Commissionsocial auditvigilance committeecooperative federalismArticle 256Supreme Court directions

Judgment

[2017] 8 S.C.R. 338

A SWARAJ ABHIYAN (V)
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 857 of2015)
B JULY21,2017
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND N. V. RAMANA, JJ.)
National Food Security Act, 2013:
ss.14, 15, 16, 28 and 29 - Implementation of - By the State
C Governments - Sought by.filing writ petition u/Art. 32 of Constitution
- Held: The Act, a social justice and social welfare legislation, is
not being implemented as it should be - Centre, States and the Union
Territories are required to ensure a transparent and accountable
Grievance Redressal Mechanism through notified rules and
D designate appropriate and independent officials as the District
Grievance Redressal Officers - While it is theoretically possible to
have a statutory commission or body, function as a State Food
Commission, but there might be several practical difficulties in the
actual working of one statutory commission performing two
functions under two d_ifferent statutes - Therefore, the Centre is
E directed to commend to the States and Union Territories to constitute
and establish a fully functional State Food Commission - Another
body or Commission can be appointed as State Food Commission
only when it is absolutely necessary and unavoidable and as a last
resort - The requirement of social audit is salutary as mandated by
F s.28 - Therefore, Centre to ensure establishing of social audit
machinery - Vigilance Committees as mandated by s.29, have not
been set up, and hence the Centre is directed to commend to the
States and Union Territories to constitute and establish a functioning
Vigilance Committee - Constitution of India - Arts. 32 and 256.
Issuing directions, the Court
G
HELD:
Per Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The draft Model Rules circulated by the Central
Government need serious consideration by the State
H
338
SWARAJ ABHIYAN (V) v. UNION OF INDIA 339

Governments and Union Territories. As advised by the Central A
Government, the grievance redressal machinery should be
independent and its functioning should be transparent. As long
as this is achieved, it hardly matters that some officer of the
Government is appointed as the District Grievance Redressal
Officer. However, as emphasized in the letter dated 14'h March, B
2017 of the Central Government, it would be appropriate if an
officer dealing with delivery of entitlements under the National
Food Security Act (NFS Act) is not appointed or designated as
the District Grievance Redressal Officer since he or she might
not be able to entertain a complaint against his or her own
functioning. In view of the circulation of the draft Model Rules, C
it is now really up to the Central Government and the
Governments of the States and Union Territories to ensure that
a transparent and accountable Grievance Redressal Mechanism
is put in place through notified rules so that the advantages of
the NFS Act can be passed on to those who need the benefit of D
this social welfare legislation. [Para 301(352-D-G)
2. Even after prodding by the Central Government and
prodding by Supreme Court, many of the State Governments have
not yet established a working State Food Commission, this is a
clear indication that there is hardly any commitment to the
implementation of the NFS Act. In the letter dated 14'h March, E
2017 it has been mentioned that the States and Union Territories
intending to designate any existing statutory commission to
function as the State Food Commission should ensure that the
provisions of Section 16 of the NFS Act are complied with. While
it is theoretically possible to have a statutory commission or body, F
function as a State Food Commission, provided that statutory
commission or body is constituted and established in accordance
with the provisions of Section 16 of the NFS Act, there might be
several practical difficulties in the actual working of one statutory
commission performing two disparate functions under two
different statutes. This is more than likely to compromise the G
efficiency of that statutory commission or body with the result
that the beneficiaries of the multifarious functions of the statutory
commission or body would suffer at both ends. This is hardly
conducive to good administration and reduces the importance of
H
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 8 S.C.R.

A a basic right to wholesome and nutritious food particularly for
women and children which is really the objective of the NFS Act.
The importance of the State Food Commission cannot be
minimized by the State Government if the NFS Act is to be
faithfully implemented. [Paras 32, 33 and 34) [353-B-GJ
B 3. Working Group on Developing Social Audit Standards
had prepared its Report and developed the protocol for
conducting a social audit in consultation with the Comptroller
and Auditor General of India in the context of the Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 ('the
MGNREG Act'). The social audit standards have been framed
C with the support of certain fundamental principles. The draft
Report is exhaustive and it has been accepted by the Central
Government and social audits under the MGNREG Act are being
conducted in accordance with the guidelines laid down as well as
the statutory rules framed under the provisions of the MGNREG
D Act. The requirement of a social audit is undoubtedly salutary
and since it has been accepted by the Central Government as
well as by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, there is
no reason why it should not be put in place in so far as the NFS
Act is concerned, particularly since a social audit is mandated
under Section 28 of the NFS Act. (Paras 36, 37 and 38)[354-C, F;
E 355-B-CJ
4. There is a necessity to set up Vigilance Committees under
s.29 of the NFS Act and the fact that they have not been set up in
spite of the passage of four years after the enactment of the NFS
Act is yet another indication of the lack of the concern shown by
F the State Governments and the Union Territories to respect a
law enacted by Parliament. It is important that each State
Government and Union Territory realizes and appreciates their
statutory and constitutional obligations and ensures that the will
of Parliament which enacted the NFS Act, is given full effect to in
letter and spirit. If the State Governments and Union Territories
G decide that they do not wish to abide by a law enacted by
Parliament for the benefit of the people, perhaps some other
solution may have to be found. Therefore, for the present, the
Court is not inclined to appoint any Food Commissioner or
Ombudsman to oversee the functioning and implementation of
H the NFS Act. [Paras 40, 41)[356-A-CJ
SWARAJ ABHIYAN (V) v. UNION OF INDIA 341

5. It is quite clear that the NFS Act, a social justice and A
social welfare legislation, is not being implemented as it should
be. Therefore, in keeping with the constitutional obligation,
following directions need to be issued for the effective
implementation of the NFS Act. The Secretary in the Ministry
concerned of the Government of India with the concerned
Secretaries of all the State Governments and Union Territories B
to take stock of the implementation of the NFS Act and brainstorm
over· finding ways and means to effectively implement the
provisions of the NFS Act in letter and spirit. The Secretary in
the Ministry concerned of the Government of India should
emphatically request and commend to every State Government C
and Union Territory to notify appropriate rules for a Grievance
Redressal Mechanism under the provisions of the NFS Act and
designate appropriate and independent officials as the District
Grievance Redressal Officer within a fixed time-frame and in any
case within this year. Adequate publicity should be given to the D
appointment and designation of District Grievance Redressal
Officers. The Secretary in the Ministry concerned of the
Government of India will emphatically request and commend to
the State Governments and Union Territories to constitute,
establish and make fully functional State Food Commission before
the end of the year. It would not be appropriate to appoint another E
statutory commission or body to function as the State Food
Commission unless it is absolutely necessary and completely
unavoidable and only as a last resort. The Secretary in the Ministry
concerned of the Government of India will emphatically commend
and request every State Government and Union Territory to
constitute and establish a functioning Vigilance Committee in F
terms of Section 29 of the NFS Act before the end of the year for
the purposes of carrying out the duties and responsibilities
mentioned in that Section. The Secretary in the Ministry
concerned of the Government of India will ensure that the social
audit machinery postulated by Section 28 of the NFS Act and which G
is already in place in so far as the MGNREG Act is concerned is
established at the earliest with appropriate modifications to enable
every State Government and Union Territory so that a periodic
social audit is conducted and the NFS Act is purposefully
implemented for the benefit of the people. (Para 42II356-E-H;
357-A-H; 358-A-B) H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PDS Matters) v.
Union of India and ors. (2013) 2 SCC 688 - referred
to.
Per N. V. Ramana, J. (Concurring and Supplementing)
1. The National Food Security Act was made in furtherance
B of India's commitment to multilateral treaties and this Court's
persistence to alleviate the condition of rampant malnutrition
prevalent in the country. The unique feature of this Act is that
the Centre has decentralized the regulatory aspects within the
Act by empowering the institutions at the bottom of the pyramid.
Section 38 of the Act gives power to the Central Government to
C give binding directions to the State Governments. [Para 6)(362-
B-C)
Swaraj Abhiyan (II) v. Union of India and ors. AIR
2016 SC 2953 - referred to.
2. For the success of the Act, it required co-operation at
D three levels. At every stage of decision making, the Central
Government has a very important role to play and has been
envisaged as a check on the working of the State Governments.
This Act elaborates on the nature of federalism as a functional
arrangement for co-operative action. In order to ensure
uniformity for enforcement of such an Act, consultation needs to
E be carried out between various State Governments, individually
as well as collectively, with the Union for effective implementation
of the Act. [Para 71 [362-E-F)
3. State enforcement of Union laws usually gives rise to
difficult questions concerning the sustainability of co-operative
F federalism which have been accepted as core constitutional ethos.
Each and every provision of the Constitution would inevitably
point that India has divided sovereignty in the form of Centre on
one hand and States on the other. Each power house is
independent in its own terms. The constitutional scheme
invariably leads to the conclusion that at times these institutions
G meet and interact at various levels to achieve the cherished
constitutional goal of co-operative federalism. [Paras 8, 9)(362-
F-G; 363-F)
Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of Haryana AIR 2016 SC
5617 - followed.
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN (V) v. UNION OF INDIA 343

4. The Constitutional set-up mandates that Centre is not A
powerless. Further, it is not proper on the part of the States to
ignore the plight of the common man in enforcing such important
legislations, more so when such legislation is a welfare legislation.
For now a meaningful dialogue between the Centre and the State
should resolve the issues which have emerged in this case in the B
spirit of co-operative federalism. Record indicates that a combined
effort, both by Centre and states, needs to be taken for effective
implementation of the Act especially in the drought affected areas
so as to save people from abject poverty and poor quality of life.
States should take up this matter with much more seriousness
and implement the Act in its true letter and·spirit. [Para 101 [ 363- C
G-H; 364-A-BJ
Case Law Reference
In the Judgment of Madan B. Lokur, J.
(2013) 2 sec 688 referred to . Para 10 D
In the Judgment of N. V. Ramana, J.
AIR 2016 SC 2953 referred to Para 6
AIR 2016 SC 5617 followed Para 8
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. E
857 of2015.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
Tushar Mehta,ASG., D. K. Thakur,Anil Grover, S.S. Sharhshery,
AAGs., Ms. V. Mahana, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advs.,
Prashant Bhushan, Rohit Kr. Singh, Omanakuttan K.K., T. Sudhakar, F
Raj iv Nanda, Mukul Singh, Ajay Sharma, Raj Bahadur, R. R. Rajesh,
Ajay Kumar Singh, G.S. Makker, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Diksha
Rai, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Kuldeep S. Parihar,
H.S. Parihar, Guntur Prabhakar, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar,Aniruddha
P. Mayee, A. Selvin Raja, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, G
Ms. Mamta Singh, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Dr. Monika Gusain, Ms.
Noopur Singhal, Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Mohd.
Waquas, Aditya Pratap Singh, V. N. Raghupathy, C. D. Singh, Ms. Sakshi
Kakkar,Avi Pandey, Ms. Shivali Chaudhary, Mahaling Pandarge, Nishant
R. Katneshwarkar, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Amit Sharma, Ms. Ruchi Kohli,
H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A B. Balaji, S. Kumar, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mrityunjai Singh, Vinay
Garg, Upendra Mishra, Uday Singh, Rajiv Nanda, Raj!! Chatterjee,
Chanchal Kr. Ganguli, V. G Pragasam, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by
B
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. Our Constitution provides a simple
answer to one disturbing question that has arisen in this case: What can
the Government of India do to require the State Governments and Union
Territories to make functional those bodies and authorities that are
mandated by a law passed by Parliament (such as the National Food
c Security Act, 2013)? The answer to this is provided in Article 256 ofour
Constitution - perhaps a forgotten provision - which reads as follows:
"256. Obligation of States and the Union-The executive power
of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with
the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply
D in that State, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to
the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the
Government of India to be necessary for that purpose."
In other words, the Government of India cannot plead helplessness
in requiring State Governments to implement parliamentary laws.
E Another question that arises is : What remedy does a citizen of
India have if the Government of India does not issue such a direction
and the State Government or the Union Territory does not implement a
law passed by Parliament?
2. These two questions arise in the context of the seriousness
F with which the National Food Security Act, 2013 -a welfare legislation
- is and should be implemented.
3. Initially the National Food Security Ordinance, 2013 was
promulgated by the President on 5th July, 2013. Thereafter, the National
Food Security Bill, 2013 was introduced in Parliament with, amongst
G others, the following objectives:
"(k) impose obligation upon the State Governments to put in place
an internal grievance redressal mechanism which may include
call centers, help lines, designation of nodal officers, or such other
mechanism as may be prescribed by the respective Governments;
H and for expeditious and effective redressal of grievances of the
SWARAJ ABHIYAN (V) v. UNION OF INDIA 345
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

aggrieved person in matters relating to distribution of entitled A
foodgrains or meals under Chapter II of the proposed legislation,
a District Grievance Redressal Officer, with requisite staff, to be
appointed by the State Government for each District, to enforce
these entitlements and investigate and redress grievances;
(I) make provision for State Food Commission to be constituted B
by every State Government for the purpose of monitoring and
review of implementation of the proposed legislation;
(o) conduct or cause to be conducted by every local authority, or
any other authority or body, as may be authorized by the State
Government, periodic social audits on the functioning of fair price c
shops. Targeted Public Distribution System and other welfare
schemes, and cause to publicise its findings and take necessary
action, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State
Government;"
4. The National Food Security Bill was passed by both Houses of D
Parliament and received the assent of the President on I O•h September,
2013. Almost four years have gone by but the authorities and bodies
mandated to be set up under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (for
short 'the NFS Act') have not yet been made functional in some States.
This is despite the fact that Section 14 of the. NFS Act requires that
"Every State Government shall put in place an internal grievance E
redressal mechanism .... "
5. Similarly, Section 15 of the NFS Act provides that "The State
Government shall appoint or designate, for each district, an officer to be
the District Grievance Redressal Officer ..... "
6. Section 16 of the NFS Act provides that "Every State· F
Government shall, by notification, constitute a State·'Food
Commission ........ "
7. Section 28 of the NFS Act provides that "Every local authority,
or any other authority or body, as may be authorized by the State G
Government, shall conduct or cause to be conducted periodic social
audits ...... "
8. Similarly Section 29 of the NFS Act provides that "For ensuring
transparency and proper functioning of the Targeted Public Distribution
System and accountability of the functionaries in such system, every
H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 8 S.C.R.

A · State Government shall set up Vigilance Committees ...... "
9. The provisions in the NFS Act mentioned above are mandatory
and yet almost four years down the line they have not been fully
implemented by some States.
10. Food security is undoubtedly extremely important and as
B observed by this Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PDS
Matters) v. Union of India and ors. 1 "Mere schemes without any
implementation are of no use." Similarly, one may ask what use is a law
passed by Parliament if State Governments and Union Territories do not
implement it at all, let alone implement it in letter and spirit.
c 11. These questions have been troubling us since this matter was
listed on 24'h October, 2016 subsequent to our order dated l3 1h May,
2016 in Swaraj Abhiyan (II). We had expected the concerned State
Governments to implement the provisions of the NFS Act with all due
seriousness since it is a social welfare legislation enacted by Parliament.
D 12. Unfortunately, during the hearing we were informed by learned
counsel for the petitioner that Section 15 and Section 16 of the NFS Act
were not being complied with by the State Governments in letter and
spirit.
13. In so far as Section 15 of the NFS Act is concerned this
E mandates the State Government to appoint or designate, for each district,
an officer to be the District Grievance Redressal Officer for expeditious
and effective redressal of grievances of aggrieved persons in matters
relating to the distribution of entitled foodgrains or meals under Chapter
II of the NFS Act and to enforce the entitlements under the said Act.
F 14. We w<:re informed that no rules had been framed as required
by Section 15 of the NFS Act for the appointment or designation of the
District Grievance Redressal Officer nor had any qualifications been
prescribed for the appointment of such officers. All that had been done
by the State Governments was that some officials were given additional
G responsibility as a District Grievance Redressal Officer. However, since
those very officers were in charge of implementation of the NFS Act,
designating them as District Grievance Redressal Officers to whom
grievances could be addressed against them did not serve any purpose
at all. We suggested to the learned Attorney General that since the
1
(2013) 2 sec 688
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN (V) v. UNION OF INDIA 347
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

States before us did not seem to be fully on board with regard to the A
implementation of a law enacted by Parliament, an extremely unfortunate
situation had arisen. To get over this stalemate created by the State
Governments it might be appropriate for the Central Government to
consider framing Model Rules under Section 15 of the NFS Act so that
it would make things easier for the State Governments and also give B
some teeth to the law enacted by Parliament.
15. In so far as Section 16 of the NFS Act is concerned this
mandates the State Government to constitute a State Food Commission
for the purpose of monitoring and review of implementation of the NFS
Act.
c
16. We were informed that some of the State Governments had
appointed the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission constituted
under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the State
Food Commission under Section 16 of the NFS Act. We were of the
view that this was imsatisfactory and not in consonance with the provisions
of the law particularly the letter and spirit of the NFS Act. We therefore D
suggested to the learned Attorney General to frame Model Rules under
Section 16 of the NFS Act also for the reasons mentioned above.
17. On 1" December, 2016 the learned Attorney General informed
us that the Secretary in the Ministry of Food and Public Distribution
pursuant to an order passed by us on 28'h October, 2016 held a meeting E
on 91hNovember, 2016. The Minutes of that meeting were placed before
us. Paragraph 6 of the Minutes state, inter alia, as follows:
" ...... As regards SFC [State Food Commission], she stated that
ideally State Governments should set up independent Commission
as per provisions of the Act and make Rules prescribing method F
and terms & conditions of appointment of Chairperson and
Members of the Commission, its powers, procedures and
periodicity of its meeting (at least once in six months), procedure
for hearing appeals and timelines for their disposal. However, the
Act also provides flexibility to State Governments for designating G
some existing Commission to act as SFC and many States have
opted for this flexibility. In such scenario also, State Government
should frame Rules to be followed by the designated Commissions
in its role as SFC. Further, Chairman and such Member (s) of the
designated Commission who will specifically perform the functions
H
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A ofSFC should be clearly indicated, and such Commission should
be provided additional staff to handle the additional work."
18. It was noted that the NFS Act provides some flexibility to the
State Governments in designating an existing Commission to act as the
State Food Commission. It was noted that many of the State Governments
B had opted for this flexibility. We expressed the view that while flexibility
was certainly provided by the NFS Act, the constitution of the State
Food Commission must nevertheless meet the requirements of the law
and its members must meet the eligibility criteria. Jn other words it is not
as if any statutory body or authority could be given additional charge as
a State Food Commission even though the members of that statutory
c body or authority did not meet the requirements of Section 16 of the
NFS Act.
19. We also expressed the view that it would be more appropriate
if a State Food Commission is constituted under Section 16 of the Act
with the necessary expertise and qualifications to function as such. We
D expressed the view that it would be appropriate if the State Food
Commission is constituted at the earliest.
20. Unfortunately, our expectations were belied in as much as
when this matter was taken up on 2211d March, 2017 we noted with
regret that generally speaking the provisions of the NFS Act had not
E been faithfully and sincerely implemented by the State Governments
before us. With regard to the implementation of Section 16 of the NFS
Act we were informed that the State Food Commission had not yet
been appointed. We noted that on an earlier occasion we were informed
that many State Governments had appointed the Consumer Redressal
F Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as
the State Food Commission under Section 16 of the NFS Act. We had
heard the learned Attorney General in this regard and had expressed the
view that giving "additional charge" to the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission to function as the State Food Commission under Section 16
of the NFS Act appeared incongruous. This is because the qualifications
G required for both the bodies were quite different but that apart we found
it odd that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which performs
judicial or quasi-judicial functions should be asked to perform
administrative and quasi-judicial functions as a State Food Commission
under the NFS Act.
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN (V) v. UNION OF INDIA 349
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J .]

21. We drew attention to our order dated 24'h October, 2016 and_ A
the fact that we had heard the learned Attorney General and the learned
Additional Solicitor General and learned counsel for the States before
we had passed the order on 24'h October, 2016.
22. We were informed during the course of hearing on 22 11d March,
2017 that many of the State Governments have in fact framed the B
necessary rules and that the Central Government had also prepared
Model Rules and circulated them to the State Governments.
Notwithstanding this and even though considerable time had elapsed a
State Food Commission has not yet been constituted in the following
States:
c
1. Madhya Pradesh
2. Karnataka
3. Andhra Pradesh
4. Telangana D
5. Maharashtra
6. Gujarat
7. Jharkhand
8. Bihar E
9. Haryana
10. Chhattisgarh
23. As far as the State ofHaryana is concerned we were informed
that although the State Food Commission had been constituted, it had F
not been provided with any infrastructure, office space or budget and it
was apparently requested not to perform any function with the result
that it was compelled to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court
for relief.
24. Since it appeared that the State Governments were not at all G
inclined to implement the provisions of a law enacted by Parliament for
the benefit of the people of the country, we were compelled and
constrained to require the presence of the Chief Secretaries of the above
mentioned States to inform us whether the law passed by Parliament is
intended to be implemented by the State Governments or not. We also
H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 8 S.C.R.

A required the concerned Chief Secretaries to ensure the appointment of
the State Food Commission in accordance with the provisions of the
Act, assuming the State Governments would be willing to implement the
law enacted by Parliament. We also required details of the appointment
of independent District Grievance Redressal Officers under Section 15
B of the NFS Act, that is to say persons independent of those against
whom complaints are made and persons who are not subordinate to the
officers against whom complaints are made. We further required the
concerned Chief Secretaries to inform us whether any social audit had
been conducted under the provisions of Section 28 of the Act which
reads as follows:
c "Conduct of social audit - (I) Every local authority, or any
other authority or body, as may be authorized by the State
Government, shall conduct or cause to be conducted, periodic
social audits on the functioning or fair price shops, Targeted Public
Distribution System and other welfare schemes, and cause to
D publicise its findings and take necessary action, in such manner
as may be prescribed by the State Government.
(2) The Central Government may, ifit considers necessary, conduct
or cause to be conducted social audit through independent agencies
having experience in conduct of such audits."
E 25. On 261hApril, 2017 most of the Chief Secretaries appeared in
Court and some had genuine reasons for not appearing. On our asking,
we were informed about the constitution, establishment and appointment
of the State Food Commission as follows:
I. Madhya Pradesh - Appointments not made.
F
2. Andhra Pradesh -Appointments not made.
3. Telangana -Appointments made.
4. Maharashtra -Appointments made but no member belonging
to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe has been appointed.
G 5.. Gujarat-Appointments made.
6. Jharkhand-Appointments made.
7. Bihar -Appointments made but there are still two vacancies.
8. Chhattisgarh -Appointments made.
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN (V) v. UNION OF INDIA 351
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

9. Karnataka (informed on 27'h April, 2017) - Constituted and A
established. However, the affidavit of the Chief Secretary states
that appointments have not yet been made.
10. Haryana - Matter is pending in the Punjab and Haryana
High Court.
26. This compliance with the NFS Act is pathetic to say the least B
and it is in this background that we are required to consider this case.
27. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in
so far as the appointment of a District Grievance Redressal Officer is
concerned, an independent person should be appointed and not the District
Collector or the Deputy Commissioner of the district. The reason C
advanced by learned counsel was that these officers are already
extremely busy, they may not be able to address the grievance of the
people within their district and are directly concerned with the
implementation of the NFS Act. As such, they might not be independent
enough to deal with the grievances. D
28. In this context, our attention was drawn to a letter dated l 41h
March, 2017 sent by the Economic Advisor in the Ministry of Consumer
Affairs, Food and Public Distribution addressed to the Principal Secretary/
Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies of all the States and
Union Territories. In this letter, attention was drawn to the necessity of E
establishing a Grievance Redressal Mechanism under the NFS Act and
the draft Model Rules circulated on 21" November, 2016. A request
was made to keep the directions issued by this Court in mind while
framing the rules which could differ from the draft Model Rules prepared
by the Central Government. For guidance a copy of the rules notified by
the State Government ofTripura were enclosed. F
29. In the letter, it was stated inter alia as follows:-
"4. While taking further action to (i) notify rules on GRM (ii)
appoint DGRO and (iii) constitute State Food Commission,
following may be kept in view:
G
(a) In order to maintain transparency and independence of the
grievance redressal machinery, it must be ensured that no officer
of the Government dealing with delivery of entitlements under the
Act is designated/appointed as DGRO.
H
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 8 S.C.R.

A (b) The States/UTs which have already designated an existing
statutory commission to fonction as Stak: Food Commission should
review the matter to ensure that its constitution is in accordance
with the provisions of Section 16 of the Act.
(c) The States/UTs intending to designate any existing statutory
B commission to function as State Food Commission should ensure
that as mandated by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the constitution of
existing commission is in accordance with the provisions of Section
16 of the Act.
(d) Keeping in view the State specific requirements and the broad
c provisions of Model Rules on GRM, the State Governments/UT
Administrations may finalize their own Rules and notify the same
in consultation with the State Legal Department, and in accordance
with the provisions of Section 40 of the Act."
30. In our view, the draft Model Rules circulated by the Central
D Government need serious consideration by the State Governments before
us as well as by other State Governments and Union Territories. As
advised by the Central Government, the grievance redressal machinery
should be independent and its functioning should be transparent. As
long as this is achieved, it hardly matters that some officer of the
government is appointed as the District Grievance Redressal Officer.
E However, as emphasized in the letter dated l 4'h March, 2017 it would be
appropriate if an officer dealing with delivery of entitlements under the
NFS Act is not appointed or designated as the District Grievance
Redressal Officer since he or she might not be able to entertain a complaint
against his or her own functioning. In view of the circulation of the draft
F Model Rules, it is now really up to the Central Government and the
Governments of the States and Union Territories to ensure that a
transparent and accountable Grievance Redressal Mechanism is put in
place through notified rules so that the advantages of the NFS Act can
be passed on to those who need the benefit of this social welfare
legislation.
G
31. With regard to the constitution and establishment of the State
Food Commission, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that it is unfortunate that even though the NFS Act has been in force for
about four years, only a few of the State Governments before us had
taken its provisions seriously. It is a pity that legislation enacted by
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN (V) v. UNION OF INDIA 353
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

Parliament for the benefit of the people should be kept on the backburner A
by some of the State Governments before us. It was submitted that this·
apathy is all pervasive and there are other State Governments and Union
Territories that have not taken the provisions of the NFS Act seriously
enough for their implementation.
32. We are in general agreement with learned counsel for the B
petitioner and the fact that even after prodding by the Central Government
and our prodding, many of the State Governments have not yet
established a \VOrking State Food Commission, this is a clear indication
that there is hardly any commitment to the implementation of the NFS
Act.
c
33. In the letter dated 14'h March, 2017 referred to above, it has
been mentioned that the States and Union Territories intending to
designate any existing statutory commission to function as the State Food
Commission should ensure that the provisions of Section 16 of the NFS
Act are complied with. In our opinion, while it is theoretically possible to
have a statutory commission or body function as a State Food D
Commission, provided that statutory commission or body is constituted
and established in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the
NFS Act, there might be several practical difficulties in the actual working
of one statutory commission performing two disparate functions under
two different statutes. This is more than likely to compromise the efficiency E
of that statutory commission or body with the result tha~ the beneficiaries
of the multifarious functions of the statutory commission or body would
suffer at both ends. This is hardly conducive to good administration and
reduces the importance of a basic right to wholesome and nutritious
food particularly for women and children which is really the objective of
the NFS Act. F
34. The importance of the State Food Commission cannot be
minimized by the State Government if the NFS Act is to be faithfully
implemented. In this regard, we are pained to read in the affidavit filed
by the State of Haryana that there is hardly any work for the State Food
Commission. With such an attitude, it is very unlikely that any progress G
will ever be made either by the State of Haryana or the State Food
Commission in Haryana in the matter of food security. One can only
feel sorry for the people in Haryana.
35. In so far as conducting a social audit is concerned, this is
H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A provided for in Section 28 of the NFS Act and was strongly recommended
by learned counsel for the petitioner.
36. It was pointed out by learned counsel and there was general
agreement with his submission on behalf of the Central Government
that the draft Report of the Working Group on Developing Social Audit
B Standards, which has been accepted by the Central Government, should
be implemented with necessary modifications in so far as the NFS Act
is concerned. The reason for the modifications is that the Working Group
had prepared its Report and developed the protocol for conducting a
social audit in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of
India in the context of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
C Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short 'the MGNREG Act'). In terms of the
draft Report the overall arrangement is as follows:-
"!. Social audit is to be conducted every 6 months by Gram Sabhas.
2. Financial audit of accounts of panchayats and State Employment
D Guarantee Fund is to be conducted annually by Directors of Local
Fund Audit/chartered accountants who send account together with
audit certificates to State Governments.
3. The accounts ofMGNREG Act Schemes, as certified, together
with the audit report on them are sent to the Central Government
E which causes them to be tabled in each House of Parliament.
4. A copy is also sent by State Governments to CAO who audits
the schemes periodically as per his independent judgment and
powers under CAG's (DPC) Act, 1971 read with provisions of
Section 24 of the MGNREG Act, 2005."
F 37. The social audit standards have been framed with the support
of certain fundamental principles as is apparent from paragraph 1.6 of
the draft Report which reads as follows:-
"These social audit standards have been framed with the support
provided by the fundamental principles of Public Sector Auditing
G (ISSA! 100) and the operational guidelines for coordination and
cooperation between SAis and internal auditors in the public sector
(ISSA! 9150), issued by INTOSAI. The national legal framework
has been borne in mind, especially taking into account provisions
ofMGNREG Act 2005, MGNREG Audit of Scheme Rules 2011,
Local Fund Audit Acts of the State Governments and CAG's
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN (V) v. UNION OF INDIA 355
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

(DPC) Act, 1971 along with the Regulations, 2007 notified by A
CAG."
38. The draft Report is exhaustive and we were informed that it
has been accepted by the Central Government and social audits under
the MGNREG Act are being conducted in accordance with the guidelines
laid down as well as the statutory rules framed under the provisions of B
the MGNREG Act.. The requirement of a social audit is undoubtedly
salutary and since it has been accepted by the Central Government as
well as°i:>y the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, we see no
reason why it should not be put in place in so far as the NFS Act is
concerned, particularly since a social audit is mandated under Section
28 of the NFS Act. C
39. It was brought to our notice by learned counsel for the petitioner
that Section 29 of the NFS Act requires setting up of Vigilance
Committees for ensuring transparency and proper functioning of the
Targeted Public Distribution System and accountability of the functionaries
in such system. Section 29 of the NFS Act reads as follows:- D
"Setting up of Vigilance Committees - ( 1) For ensuring
transparency and proper functioning of the Targeted Public
Distribution System and accountability of the functionaries in such
system, every State Government shall set-up Vigilance Committees
as specified in the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, E
2001 made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of
1955), as amended from time to time, at the State, District, Block
and fair price shop levels consisting of such persons, as may be
prescribed by the State Government giving due representation to
the local authorities, the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, F
women and destitute persons or persons with disability.
(2) The Vigilance Committees shall perform the following
functions, namely:-
(a) regularly supervise the implementation of all schemes under
this Act; G
(b) inform the District Grievance Redressal Officer, in writing, of
any violation of the provisions of this Act; and
(c) inform the District Grievance Redressal Officer, in writing, of
any malpractice or misappropriation of funds found by it."
H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 8 S.C.R.

A 40. There can hardly be any doubt that there is a necessity to set
up Vigilance Committees under the NFS Act and the fact that they have
not been set up in spite of the passage of four years after the enactment
of the NFS Act is yet another indication of the lack of the concern
shown by the State Governments and the Union Territories to respect a
law enacted by Parliament.
B
41. Learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that we appoint
Food Commissioners or Ombudsman who would oversee the functioning
and implementation of the NFS Act since the State Governments before
us and indeed other State Governments and Union Territories were not
implementing the provisions of the NFS Act. For the present, we are
c not inclined to appoint any Food Commissioner or Ombudsman to oversee
the functioning and implementation of the NFS Act. In our opinion, it is
more important that each State Government and Union Territory realizes
and appreciates their statutory and constitutional obligations and ensures
that the will of Parliament which enacted the National Food Security
D Act, 2013 is given full effect to in letter and spirit. If the State
Governments and Union Territories decide that they do not wish to abide
by a law enacted by Parliament for the benefit of the people, perhaps
some other solution may have to be found but we hope that no State
Government or Union Territory disregards the will of Parliament.
E 42. In view of our discussion above, it is quite clear that the NFS
Act, a social justice and social welfare legislation, is not being implemented
as it should be. That is the bane of our society and therefore, in keeping
with our constitutional obligation we are of opinion that the fol lowing
directions need to be issued for the effective implementation of the
National Food Security Act, 2013:
F
1. The Secretary in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and
Public Distribution of the Government oflndia should convene
one or more meetings on or before 31" August, 2017 of the
concerned Secretaries of all the State Governments and Union
Territories to take stock of the implementation of the NFS Act
G and brainstorm over finding ways and means to effectively
implement the provisions of the NFS Act in letter and spirit. A
law enacted by Parliament as a part ofits social justice obligation
must be given its due respect and must be implemented faithfully
and sincerely and positively before the end of this year.
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN (V) v. UNION OF INDIA 357
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

2. The Secretary in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and A
Public Distribution of the Government of India should
emphatically request and commend to every State Government
and Union Territory to notify appropriate rules for a Grievance
Redressal Mechanism under the provisions of the NFS Act
and designate appropriate and independent officials as the
District Grievance Redressal Officer within a fixed time frame B
and in any case within this year. Adequate publicity should be
given to the appointment and designation of District Grievance
Redressal Officers so that any aggrieved person can approach
them without any fear and with the expectation that the
grievance will be redressed. C
3. The Secretary in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and
Public Distribution of the Government of India will emphatically
request and.commend to the State Governments and Union
Territories to constitute, establish and make fully functional ll
State Food Commission under the provisions of the NFS Act D
before the end of the year. The NFS Act specifies a very
large number of functions that a State Food Commission is
required to perform - there is no dearth of work for the State
Food Commission. Therefore the said Secretary should require
the Chief Secretary to ensure that adequate arrangements are
made by each State Government and Union Territory to provide E
adequate infrastructure, staff and other facilities for the
meaningful functioning of the State Food Commission including
preparation of annual reports required to be laid before the
State Legislature. In our opinion, it would not be appropriate
for reasons that we have already indicated to appoint another F
statutory commission or body to function as the State Food
Commission unless it is absolutely necessary and completely
unavoidable and only as a last resort.
4. The Secretary in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and
Public Distribution of the Government oflndia will emphatically G
commend and request every State Government and Union
Territory to constitute and establish a functioning Vigilance
Committee in terms of Section 29 of the NFS Act before the
end of the year for the purposes of carrying out the duties and
responsibilities mentioned in that Section.
H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A 5. The Secretary in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and
Public Distribution of the Government of India will ensure that
the social audit machinery postulated by Section 28 of the NFS
Act and which is already in place in so far as the MGNREG
Act is concerned is established at the earliest with appropriate
modifications to enable every State Government and Union
B
Territory so that a periodic social audit is conducted and the
NFS Act is purposefully implemented for the benefit of the
people.
N. V. RAMAN A, J. I. I have had the privilege of going through
the judgment of my learned brother, Justice Madan B. Lokur. In the
C facts and circumstances of this case, I agree with the conclusions and
directions. However considering the larger constiMional question relating
to non-compliance of laws by the States, I feel it necessary to add on
certain aspects which are involved in this case.
2. As enforcement determines the distance between the law in
D text and law in action, therefore what concerns us, in this case, is the
implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013 [hereinafter 'Act'
for brevity] by various State Governments.
3. Broadly we are concerned with five areas in which certain
State Governments have been found deficient in implementing the Act,
E they are-
1. Formulation of Rules under Section 40 of the Act for effective
implementation.
2. Constitution of District Grievance Redressal Officer
[hereinafier 'DGRO' for brevity] under Section 15 of the
F
Act.
3. Constitution of Food Commission under Section 16 of the Act.
4. Conducting 'Social Audit' under Section 28 of the Act.
5. Constitution of Vigilance Committee under Section 29 of the
G Act.
4. Before we deal with various aspects it would be necessary to
notice the status of implementation by some of the States in the above
mentioned areas. The table given below indicates the status of
implementation of the Act as revealed from the record-
H
Table No. I -Table indicating the lmplernentatton oftha Act.

r:n

Joint Collector-IT and
Additional District
Not appointed. A
n-otification has been
issued constituting the
State food
Social audit of
~
._

z e:;~
Fair Pric-e shops

-~"DHR~
. .
Not ·a,·adable on
formulated
from
I magistrate of the Di.<trict
is designated as the
District Griev.ance
Commission under
Section 16 of the
National food Security
and targeiod PDS
bas been entruS!ed
Needs to be reconstituted in
terms of Rule 9 of the
PRADESH 1
record 1 1_8.04.2017 Re<lre~sal Offaer {DGRO) Act, 2013, vide to SSA.-'J,
Department of
· Andhra .Pradesh food
Security Rules, 2-017 ~~
~::
under Rule 6 of the G.0.MS No. 6,
Rural
Andhra Pradesh Food 1
Consumer Affairs~
Development.
Secm:ity Rules, 2017 ! Food & Chi! Supplies
Department dated:-
~-5
12.04.2017. ~ :<:

-
.;i,.C
Constituted State Food
Vidc order 432 Commission as a z
N .. lab! f ul ed dt.23.01.2014, aseparate separate entity v;de ._ 0
.:._,
BmAR I ' 0 1 :n·~
re.ord
e <>Il
1
orm at
m 2014 1
DGRO (above the level of . notification no.. 386 dt.
Addi. Collector) is in 21.()2.2014. Olrrently
Ni>t in place. Not available on record. z
places. post of Chairman is
0
1--rj
,•acant.
zti
C'HHATIJSC.-\RH I
Not -..--i'-b! en
~;:d e ·
I NOt framed
I
.
Ap?Ointed Chief
Executive Officers,
Constituted
Commission v!de
notification
dt.13.12.2016.
Chairman and five
No rules are
uotified or social
audit in terms of -Not ai,-ai1able ·on tec-ord
-
>
Panohayat in 27 districts Section 28 is being
members we-re
on22.03.2017. canted o.ut.
appointed on
-----------·-·- 31.03.2017.

::c 0 'Tj tTl ti (j to > VJ
Vl

'°
w
::r: 0 "Tl tTl 0 (') IJ:l > 0\
0

Earlier had appointed
District Supply Officer as That the
DGRO vtd" GTH- Go,·crnmcnt
2016!LPDS· 102016.•·15 LC Ccnstituted Commission vtda C/)
I dt27 Ol.~016. Funher Notification No.
has decided
to gin the Not available
c'"O
01.04.2016 Not framed revised and appointed GTH2017 PDS 10.2016:16671C

~
GL'JARAT social audit on record
Residential Additional 1 dt.21.03.2017 and appointed
to Gujarat
Collector (Additional the Chairman and members.
Social Audit
District magistrate} as
Society.
DGRO (')
0
c:
~
That the State Government
has already designated all Sub judtca before the High Court
G;
Not the deputy Conunissioners None '"1:l
Earlier additional charge \Vas Not 0
H..\RY~"-' available on Not framed as District Grievance conducted so
given to Pight to Sentice constitut-ed
record Rcdrcssal Officer vidc
Notification dated
Commission.
far ~
C/)
03.10.2013.

Gram Sabha
State Food Commission under
for rural
Section 16 of the Act \Vas
areas and
constituted vide J...fcmo
Formulated AddL Collector is Nagar Palika 'N
JHARKH..\..'m
August.
2015
on
December,
2015
designated as District
Gricvanc:eRcdre-ssal Officer
(DGRO)
NoJcha_pra ·
I ja.wi.pra(ra.kha.su.ra.kha.aa.)7-
5 2014-1632 1633 dt.13.0-+.2017.
Further the Government has
(Urban Local
Body) for
urban areas
ha'\·e been
Not a\:ailable
on record -
0
- ..J
~

00
appointed Chairman and other rn
entrusted for
fi'\re members.
Social Audit 0
~
A notification
(N otifii::atiori
Draft bearing No. F-6-
Not ~ot constituted_ NOtification
Rules 2017-XXIX-l)to
Not bearing No. F-7-3 5-2013-X..'CTX-

~
:\IADHYA available implcriJ:ent Social Not Constituted
Formulated constituted I calling for appointment of th-e
PRADESH on Audit in-terms of
from Commission on 11.04.2017.
record 07.04.2017 s·ection 28 of the
Act was issued on
03.04:2017.

Additional z ~::r:
~~
Collectors-
'-Vho arc not Separate commission is .
Vide Government
-eoncemed constituted \.-id:e Notification
~~
Not Resolution
available -....ith PDS dt.11-04_2017, \vherein earlier dt.30.07.2016, Not available on record
'.\[AH.-\RASHIRA Not framed State Consumer Commission '\vas

~;
on ha'-·e been Social· audit is in
record appointed as designated.Appoinonmr are·to ~ place_
DGROvidc done.

-
Notification
:;t>C
dt.07 .042017
- :z
·vigilance committee set-up '-
..:......0
State Food Commission under un-de:r Rule I 0 of Telangana z
Food Security Rules. 2015,
~
Joint Section 16 of the A.ct 'vas
Collector of constituted vide G.0.1\·ls. No_2, Social audit of Fair wherein th-e District collector is

Oct.,
Fonnul;,.,d
from
district under
Ruic 4 of
Telangana
(CS.!-CCSj dt_ 10.04.2017 and
subsequently constimred. Further
the Government has appointed
Price sh-ops and
targeted PDS has
been entrusted to
to be the: Chairinan,
Chairperson, Zilla P-arisha-d to be
Co-Chairman.. Joint-collector to
z0
TELA.'CGAl\A 2015 25.02.2016 Food Chairman. five members and SSAATcTS under
thcMGNERGA
be the \.1ce-Chairn1an_ District
Supply Officer shall be the
;;
Smt. G. Jamuna. AddL Secretary
.
Security
Rules, 2015 to Government (Non-cadre)~ PR& platform. convener and other existing
RD Dept. as member :secretary members there!' shall be other
for period of t\'VO years_ members as per the National
Food Securif\..· Act.

::r: CJ 'Tl tn 0 (j to >
-
t..J
°'
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A 5. It is apparent from the above tabulated data that various State
Governments seem to be not so prompt in implementing the Act in its
true letter and spirit. Therefore the question for adjudication is, what is
the remedy for Union Government as well as the citizens against non-
implementing States?
B 6. The Act was made in furtherance of lndia's commitment to
multilateral treaties and this Court's persistence to alleviate the condition
of rampant malnutrition prevalent in the country. In Swaraj Abhiyan
(II)' this Court explained the need and importance of this enactment for
India. The unique feature of this Act is that the Center has de-centralized
the regulatory aspects within the Act by empowering the institutions at
C the bottom of the pyramid. It would be important to reproduce Section
38 of the Act which gives power to the Central Government to give
binding directions to the State Governments in the following manner-
The Central Government may, from time to time, give such
directions, as it may consider necessary, to the State Governments for
D the effective implementation of the provisions of this Act and the State
Governments shall comply with such directions.
7. One thing which stands out from a plain reading of the Act is
that for its success it requires co-operation at three levels. It is to be
noted that at every stage of decision making the Central Government
E has a very important role to play and has been envisaged as a check on
the working of the State Governments. This Act elaborates on the nature
of federalism as a functional arrangement for co-operative action. In
order to ensure uniformity for enforcement of such an Act, consultation
needs to be carried out between various State Governments, individually
F as well as collectively, with the Union for effective implementation of
the Act.
8. It is to be noted that State enforcement of Union Jaws usually
gives rise to difficult questions concerning the sustainability of co-operative
federalism, which we have accepted as our core constitutional ethos. ln
G Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of Haryana 1, a nine judge bench of this
Court has reiterated the principles of co-operative federalism in India in
the following manner-
' 185. The Union and the States are co-equal in the Indian
1 Swaraj Abhiyan (II) v. Union oflndia and otr., AIR 2016 SC 2953
2
AIR 2016 SC 5617
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN (V) v. UNION OF INDIA 363
[N. V. RAMANA, J.]

Federal structure. Our framers created a 'unique federal A
structure which cannot be abridged in a sentence or two.
The nature of our federalism can only be studied having a
thorough understanding of all the provisions of the
Constitution. Confirmation that the Union and States are
co-equals in the Indian federal structure. can be found in B
the speeches of Hon'ble P.S. Deshmukh, Shri T. T.
Krishnamachari and Hon'ble Dr. B. R. Ambedkar before
the Constituent Assembly. Common philosophy which runs through
our Constitution is that both Center and States have been vested
with the substantial powers which are necessary to preserve our
unique federation with clear demarcation of power. Calling India C
as quasi-federal might not be advisable as our features are unique
and quite different from other Countries like United States of
America etc. Courts ih India should strive to preserve this unique
balance which our framers envisaged, any interference into this
balancing act would be detrimental for grand vision proscribed by
D
our makers. Amphibious nature of our federalism has been even
noted by the Sarkaria Commission Report on Center-State
relationship. Co-operative federalism envisaged under our
Constitution is a result of pick and choose policy which our
framers abstracted from the wisdom of working experience
of other Constitutions' E
(emphasis supplied)
9. The principle of federalism as present in India cannot be
explained in a sentence or two; rather a detailed study of the each and
every provision of the Constitution would inevitably point that India has
divided sovereignty in the form of Center on one hand and States on the F
other. Each power house is independent in its own terms. The
constitutional scheme invariably leads to the conclusion that at times
these institutions meet and interact at various levels to achieve the
cherished constitutional goal of co-operative federalism.
10. It is to be noted that our Constitutional set-up mandates that G
Center is not powerless which is apparent from various Articles of the
Constitution. Further, it is not proper on the part of the States to ignore
the plight of the common man in enforcing such important legislations,
more so when such legislation is a welfare legislation. From the table
provided above we have seen more breaches than compliance which H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A compelled us to call the Chief Secretaries of all the States to appear
before us. I am of the opinion that for now a meaningful dialogue between
the Center and the State should resolve the issues which have emerged
in this case in the spirit of co-operative federalism. Record indicates that
a combined effort, both by Center and States, needs to be taken for
effectivt: implementation of the Act especially in the draught affected
B
areas so as to save people from abject poverty and poor quality of life.
States should take up this matter with much more seriousness and
implement the Act in its true letter and spirit.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Directions issued.