Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
NEWS ALERTS | Supreme Court asks for constituting State Food Commission to implement NFSA
Supreme Court asks for constituting State Food Commission to implement NFSA

Supreme Court asks for constituting State Food Commission to implement NFSA

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Dec 13, 2016   modified Modified on Dec 16, 2016
 
As per the Section 16 of National Food Security Act (NFSA), for the purpose of monitoring and review of implementation of the Act, every state shall, by notification, constitute a State Food Commission (SFC).

However, based on the minutes of a meeting that was held by the Secretary in the Ministry of Food and Public Distribution on 9th November, 2016, the Attorney General of India has informed a two-judge Supreme Court bench on 1 December, 2016 that many states have asked for flexibility for designating some existing Commission to act as the SFC.

In response to a PIL that was filed by the NGO Swaraj Abhiyan in December last year, the SC bench comprising judges Madan B Lokur and NV Ramana on 1 December, 2016, however, said that it is of the opinion that the SFC for every state should be constituted at the earliest in accordance with Section 16 of the NFSA, instead of having some other body function as the SFC without possessing the necessary expertise or the qualification to function as a SFC.

In the SC order dated 28 October, 2016 pertaining to the same PIL i.e. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 857/2015, the bench mentioned about a table that was provided by the Swaraj Abhiyan counsel Prashant Bhushan. That table indicated that there has been scanty rainfall in nearly 194 districts during the 2016 monsoon season due to which drought situation still prevails in many parts of the country. Earlier, in May this year the SC had asked for proper implementation of the NFSA by various state governments against the backdrop of back-to-back drought.  

On behalf of Swaraj Abhiyan, counsel Prashant Bhushan had told the bench on 24 October, 2016 that the state governments have not been complying with Sections 15 and 16 of the NFSA in letter and spirit despite directions from the SC bench.

In its order dated 24 October, 2016 pertaining to the above-said PIL, the SC bench had found that the state governments did not frame any rule/s for the appointment or designation of the District Grievance Redressal Officer (DGRO) or the qualifications for appointment as DGRO, which is required under Section 15 of the NFSA. Joint Collectors of Districts, District Collectors, Deputy Commissioners of Districts etc. have been given additional responsibility as DGRO by various state governments. Since such officials are the ones who are in-charge of implementation of the NFSA, making them responsible to address grievances did not serve any purpose at all, said that order.

It needs to be mentioned here that as per Section 15 of the NFSA, the state government shall appoint or designate an officer to be DGRO for each district for expeditious and effective redressal of grievances of the aggrieved persons in matters relating to distribution of entitled foodgrains under Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) and prescribe the qualification, power, terms and conditions of the office of the DGROs.

Instead of appointing SFC as per the Section 16 of the NFSA, the state governments appointed Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as SFCs, stated the SC order dated 24 October, 2016.

One may recall that the CAG report on the status of NFSA's implementation (tabled in Parliament on 29 April, 2016) says that the provision for penalty on public servant or authority, is to be imposed by the SFC, in case of failure to comply with relief recommended by the DGRO. Further as per sub-Clause 8 under Clause 11 of TPDS (Control) Order, 2015, an appeal against the order of the DGRO shall be preferred before the SFC constituted under NFSA.

Lifting of foodgrains for NFSA

The Supreme Court bench on 1 December 2016 has asked drought affected states to file affidavits within two weeks so as to indicate why they have not been lifting additional allocated foodgrains.

The lawyer for Swaraj Abhiyan Prashant Bhushan informed the Supreme Court that state governments have not been lifting the additional allocated foodgrains since it is being supplied at the Minimum Support Price (MSP) and not at the price as is mentioned under the NFSA.   

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the SC bench on 1 December, 2016 that although the entitlement of foodgrains under the NFSA is 75 percent for the rural areas and 50 percent for the urban areas, in case the rural population or the urban population or both exceed that cut-off percentage, the benefit of the Act is not being denied to the eligible persons as long as they are able to prove their identity.


References:


Supreme Court judgement on the writ petition (C) No. 857 of 2015 Part-I, 11 May, 2016, please click here to access
 
Supreme Court judgement on the writ petition (C) No. 857 of 2015 Part-II, 13 May, 2016, please click here to access

Supreme Court judgement on the writ petition (C) No. 857 of 2015 Part-III, 13 May, 2016, please click here to access

Supreme Court judgement on the writ petition (C) No. 857 of 2015 Part-IV, 13 May, 2016, please click here to access 

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 857 of 2015, Swaraj Abhiyan Note before the Supreme Court, please click here to access

Why are Drought-Affected States not Lifting Sufficient Food Grain: Supreme Court, IANS/NDTV, NDTV, 2 December, 2016, please click here to access

Press Note: Centre to convene meeting of 12 drought affected states for implementation of NFSA, Swaraj Abhiyan, 28 October, 2016, please click here to access   

How can you pursue PIL case over drought, SC asks Swaraj Abhiyan, The Tribune, 24 October, 2016, please click here to access

CAG Audit Report no. 54 of 2015 on the Preparedness for implementation of NFSA (2013), released on 29 April, 2016, please click here to access
 
Key findings: CAG Audit Report no. 54 of 2015 on the Preparedness for implementation of NFSA (2013), released on 29 April, 2016, please click here to access

National Food Security Act, 2013, which got the Presidential assent on 10 September, 2013, please click here to access



Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close