LEGAL METHODS

NITESH MISHRA, 43 BALLB 17

SUBMITTED TO: PROF. (DR.) ANUP SURENDRANATH

 JUSTICE BLACKMUN’S OPINION IN
BOWERS V. HARDWICK
Facts:

Hardwick had indulged in homosexual sodomy with another adult man, in the bedroom of his
home and hence, been charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalising consensual
sodomy.

Procedural History:

The District Attorney decided not to place the case before the jury until further evidence
developed. The respondent then, approached the Federal District Court, challenging the
constitutionality of the Georgian statute. The court dismissed the claim. The respondent then
went to the Court of Appeal of the Eleventh Circuit, which reversed the judgement of the
District Court, holding that the statute violates the Fundamental Right of the respondent.
Since other Courts of Appeal have held different views on this matter, the U.S. Supreme
Court granted the Attorney General of the State of Georgia to appeal the case before it.

Issues of the case:

1. The broad language and the selective application of the Georgian statute are
questionable.

The language used in the statute makes the gender and status of the person engaging in such
acts irrelevant. The language makes the law applicable to both, homosexuals and
heterosexuals, alike. So, there exists no basis for the court to hold it “applied” against the
homosexuals only nor, is there any feasible basis for the State to rest its argument on the
pretext of preventing homosexuality. The discriminatory enforcement of law is quite
questionable here.

The respondent had made claim of intrusion into his right to privacy, which seems to be not
so relevant here. But, it then becomes the duty of the court to examine the complaint to
determine if the allegation provide for relief of any possible theory. It’s a well settled
principle in law that a case can’t be dismissed merely because the plaintiff’s allegation do not
support the theory he advances.

2. The expansive breach into the Right to Privacy and personal choices is
questionable.

The constitution promises certain sphere of individual liberty to the people, which is largely
beyond the ambit of the State to interfere. He points out that we protect these rights of the
individuals not for the welfare of the general public rather, because they form a central part of
the life of an individual. A person primarily belongs to himself and not to the society. The
decisions of marrying, begetting children, protection of family are protected for the sake of
individuals and not for the sake of society or for adhering to religious principles. The central
theme to any concept of liberty is to provide individuals with the ability to independently
define one’s identity and for emotional enrichment from our ties with others. Sexual intimacy
happens to be a key and sensitive ingredient of fruitful human existence and personality
development. There can be many “right” ways of conducting these relationships, according to
the preference of the individual. Thus, they need to have a freedom of choice in carrying out
these intensely personal relationships. A way of life of an individual cannot be condemned
for it being “odd”, if it doesn’t interferes with the rights or interests of others. So, neither the
court nor the society, in general, should have any recognisable control over the intimate
relations of an individual with others.

Moreover, the act was committed at the home of the respondent. The 4 th amendment attaches
special significance to a person’s home. The constitution puts forth that the protection of the
physical integrity of one’s home is of paramount importance. Stanley vs. Georgia (1969) did
provide that an individual has the right to satisfy his intellectual and emotional needs in the
privacy of his own home. The right of an individual to conduct intimate relationships in the
privacy of his own home is apparently the heart of the Constitution’s protection of privacy.

3. The State can’t just rely on the religious and social believes in order to defend
the statute.

He puts forth the point that nothing in record can prove that the act of sodomy is physically
dangerous, either for the person engaged in it or for others, in general. Hence, there doesn’t
happen to be any valid justification for the act being forbidden by the statute. The State must
establish the ill effects of the act for the public in general, in order to have a suitable ground
to ban it. The petitioner’s argument of that the act being considered as immoral or hundreds
of years as being a sufficient ground to ban it today as well cannot be agreed upon. “Mere
public intolerance or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of a person’s
physical liberty.” The State should give something more substantial than mere religious
doctrines to defend its case. The ‘freedom to differ’ ought to be applied in critical issues of
the society as well and not just merely, in cases where it is easy to apply.

Hence, the State cannot regulate the intimate behaviour of the individuals, in intimate places.

Conclusion:

Justice Blackmun dismisses the petition of the Attorney General of Georgia. He considers
that the statute of the State do not specifically points out at it being against homosexual
sodomy rather, is applicable to all people in general. So, discriminatory enforceability of the
law isn’t justified. The right to privacy and choice must be protected and mere social believes
and religious doctrines aren’t enough for denying someone these rights.
CASE SUMMARY OF KHARAK SINGH V.
THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Facts:

Kharak Singh was challaned in a case of dacoity but was released for lack of evidence. On
the basis of the accusations, the police opened a class A “history-sheet” in regard to him. The
petitioner describes the surveillance to be quite troublesome. He claims that the police
constables used to wake him in the middle of the night and sometimes, ask him to accompany
them to the police station to record his presence. He claims that the officials had misused the
authority given by the Regulations, which is plainly denied by the officials. Regulation 236 of
the U.P. Police Regulations described “surveillance” in 6 clauses which is challenged in the
court by the petitioner.

Procedural History:

The constitutional validity of the U.P. Police Regulations and the powers conferred upon the
police officials is challenged before the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution, on
the grounds that they violate the right guaranteed to citizens by Arts. 19(1)(d) and 21 of the
Constitution.

Issues decided by the Court:

1. Whether Art. 19(1) (d) violated by the Regulation 236 of the U.P. Police Regulations.

2. Whether Art. 21 violated by the U.P. Police Regulations

3. Whether any other Fundamental Right under Art. 19 violated by the U.P. Police
Regulations.

Arguments & Reasoning:

Before discussing the issues in hand, we could have a look at a few over arching points in the
case.

Justice Ayyangar points out that the State can only defend the violation of the fundamental
right by justifying its action by reference to a valid law. But, since, these Regulations are no
law and just an executive order, the State can’t defend the violation of fundamental right by
saying that it is necessary to control criminal behaviour, if the petitioner were to prove that
his fundamental right has been violated. The only recluse available to the defence is to prove
that there has been no infringement of any of the fundamental right under Art. 19 or Art. 21.

Both, the majority and the minority consider that this case has more elements to it the just the
right of the individual involved in the case. It is more about the right of every citizen of India.
If the police could do what has been claimed to the petitioner, they could also do the same to
any law abiding citizen of the country.

Justice Subbarao says that there is an overlapping relation between Art. 21 and Art. 19 of the
Constitution, though there are distinct fundamental rights. If a person’s fundamental right
under Article 21 is violated, the State can rely on a law to sustain the action. But, if it is
violated under Article 19, the State must show both, the presence of a valid law to support its
claim and also that it does amount to a reasonable restriction. To this, Justice Ayyangar is of
the view that there is no overlapping as such. The word ‘personal’ narrows down the ambit of
Article 21.

Justice Ayyangar also dismisses the claim of the petitioner which says that the act in question
is also a trespass, and thereby, a tort. He says that if the petitioner claims it to be a tort then,
he has no right to come to Supreme Court under Article 32, claiming it to be a violation of
fundamental right.

1. In the question regarding the violation of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d), the
majority holds that this right of the petitioner is not violated. They take a narrow approach
towards the ambit of this right and say that the Article in question talks about something
tangible and physical restricting one’s freedom of movement rather than, the thoughts and
mental inhibitions of the individuals. They say that the petitioner was physically free to move
about anywhere, despite the mental inhibition he had due to the constant watch of the police.

The minority doesn’t agree to this and says that the adverb “freely” gives a larger content to
the freedom. Mere physical absence of obstructions can’t be enough of the object of this
Article. The overshadowing presence of the police causes apprehension in the minds of the
petitioner and hence, he can’t move about freely. Hence, his fundamental right is violated.

2. In the question regarding the violation of the fundamental right under Article 21, both, the
majority and the minority, agree to that there has been a violation of this right.

The majority holds that the clause the Right to Life under Article 21 doesn’t merely mean the
right to animal existence rather, refers to a more qualified existence. They are of the opinion
that the words ‘personal liberty’ excludes from its purview an invasion by the police of the
sanctity of a man’s home and an intrusion into his personal security and his right to sleep.
These things are important for ensuring the full development and evolution of an individual.
They hold that the unauthorised intrusion into a person’s home and the disturbances caused
thereby, violate the common law right of a man. Hence, they strike down Clause (b) of the
Regulation 236, which authorises “domiciliary visits”, as it being violative of Art. 21 and
hence, held unconstitutional. The rest of the clauses of the Regulation are held valid as they
don’t find it to be violating either Article 19 or Article 21 as it states that the Right to Privacy
is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

The minority holds that the restrains to ‘personal liberty’, in today’s society, are more of
psychological ones than the physical ones. It further claims that the right to personal liberty
includes not only a right to be free from the restrictions placed over the movements, but also
free from encroachment into one’s private life. Even though the Constitution doesn’t
expressly declare Right to Privacy as a fundamental right, it happens to be an essential
element of the Right to Personal Liberty. It holds that all the acts of ‘surveillance’ under
Regulation 236 infringe the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the
Constitution.

3. In the question regarding the violation of any other fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 19, the majority holds no opinion over it while the minority goes on to claim that the
Freedom of Speech and Expression, under Article 19(1)(a) has been violated.

It substantiates its claim with the statement that the Regulations impose a restriction over the
subjective or psychological content of the speech and only allow the mechanics of the speech
and expression. The individual shall not be able to communicate his intimate and real
thoughts with people around, if he is under constant surveillance. Hence, his freedom of
speech under Article 19(1)(a) is also infringed.

Holding of the Case:

By a majority of 4:2, the writ petition was partly allowed and Regulation 236(b) which
authorises “domiciliary visits” is struck down as unconstitutional. It is considered to be
violative of the fundamental right to Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
 A FINE BALANCE
‘A Fine Balance’, the title of the book supposedly paints a very positive and optimistic sort of
picture, which stands in direct contrast with the storyline engraved in the pages within. As I
had read the title of the book for the first time, I had expected to read a story where things
and circumstances might have been troublesome for the characters within, but, it would have
been ‘finely balanced’ with their share of happiness and pleasure. But, as I came to the end of
the book, I had realised that the story was not meant in a way as I had expected it to be. There
wasn’t any ‘fine balance’ maintained for most of the characters and we had been slapped with
the harsh truth of life that sometimes life might just not be fair. One might even look at the
title of the novel as referring to the fragile situation of the poor and the common people of the
society, who struggle day and night to make the ends meet. Their lives are always hung upon
a ‘fine balance’ which could be disturbed by even slightest of the interference of the so-called
‘people in power’ and leave the already miserable lives of these people in all the more
doldrums. Ultimately, one might say that the title of the book is quite an elusive one and quite
paradoxically, also captures the very essence of the story.

My core thought after reading the books remains to be appreciation of the beauty of
simplicity of the people. The story ends on a kind of mixed note, where everything seems to
have gone haywire and that too in a depressing kind of sense but, the simplicity of human
needs left me with a smile on my face. With the death of Maneck, when the entire mood of
the story had turned all gloomy and depressing, the very next page which described the
encounter of Dina Dalal with the tailors, Ishvar and Om, where she fed them food at her
brother Nusswan’s place, brought a sort of half smile and a sense of satisfaction, in the sense
that after all sorts of hardships each of them had faced and the life-wrecking incidents that
they all had gone through personally, their spirits still remained alive, no matter how subdued
or dormant it had been made. After all this while, all that they needed to make themselves
happy was a little food and warmth. Ishvar still remained his usual jovial self and even Om
essentially remained the same. The line which said that the Uncle-Nephew pair never failed
to make Dina laugh was something which appealed to me on an emotional level. After all this
time, it was the simplicity of the people which had remained charming. The simplicity and
the nature of the people, which had seem to be quite commonplace and obvious in the scene
in the train where the tailors were introduced, had acquired a paramount importance, by the
end of the story. Perhaps, it is this humane feeling which makes us survive our way through
and perhaps, this is the last thing one would want to give up upon.

The author of the book, Rohinton Mistry, has touched upon a variety of themes throughout
the book and each of them has been given such a detailed and subtle description that it makes
the readers live those moments of past. The book has been set up during the time period of
1975- 1984, wherein laid the times of Emergency and the rule of Indira Gandhi, as the Prime
Minister of India. The visual imageries created during the course of the book makes the
readers cringe at the descriptions of the horrors and the plights of the humans who went
through those horrors.
The independence which Dina Dalal sought to achieve in a patriarchal society is worth the
appreciation. She never liked the hegemony her elder brother, Nusswan, tried to impose over
her. She saw to it that she remained a constant rebel thought her formative years and
remained so even when she was proposed to be married off to one of Nusswan’s friends. She
married Rustom, whom she loved dearly. Perhaps, the affection which we witness amidst the
two was one of the warmer parts of the novel. Even after Rustom’s death, she did not bow
down to societal or Nusswan’s pressure and made sure that she lived an independent life as
she hated asking for monetary help from her brother. But, towards the end of the book, her
failing spirit was a real emotional turmoil. The line where she says that she did not care
anymore what happened to her as she had seen enough already, which made Nusswan cherish
the memories of the rebel that she used to be, was again emotionally appealing. In a sense, it
shows that the wants and needs of humans are simple, and in this case, it was freedom to take
one’s own decision.

The intricacies of the human relations have been well brought out in the entire course of the
book and apparently, that happens to be one of the major themes which the author covers.
Human relations are complicated and unexpected. The friendship between the four main
character s has been a central theme of the book. It was unexpected, in the sense, that Om and
Ishvar belonged to a very lowly caste and a friendship to emerge between Om and Maneck
was not something one would come across every day, given the back drop of the caste
atrocities widely prevalent in throughout the country. Furthermore, Dina Dalal’s compassion
for the tailors was also beyond human perceptions, in one sense, and at the same time, the
very essence of humanity. Maneck had offered to help out Dina in looking for tailors and
even in some of the stitching works, out of pure sense of compassion and friendship. The
Emergency imposed got the four of these characters together and this very fact openly points
to the fact that humans are inherently free of prejudices that the society makes them believe
in and it is the troubled waters which brings out the very humane nature of us. Family and
longing for family has also been covered, in the sense that Maneck had no wish to go to
Dubai and rather, blamed his parents for his loneliness at Dubai. The sense of longing is
brought out by the fact that he agrees to take up his father’s store after his death, in fond
remembrance of his father. Happiness is simple and comes in togetherness, not in solitude.
Such is the human nature.

The caste biases and atrocities have been another major theme which has been explored. The
very vivid descriptions of the atrocities committed against the “untouchables” point to a very
dismal state of affairs in our very own social fabric. It happens to be appealing on a both
emotional and moral level. The dominant castes used to blame every misfortune upon the
members of the lower castes and punish them inhumanely for even slight digression from the
caste barriers, even when the “mistakes” would have been unavoidable most of the times they
occurred. The suppressed class lived in a constant fear of his family, alongside him, being
physically and mentally harmed. And we see that their fears aren’t based on any false
conceptions. The treatment meted out to Ishvar’s family, back in their village, where his
entire family, but Om and him, was burnt down for taking a stance against the caste abuse, is
a glaring example of the point stated above. All that they could ever ask for is equality and
safety and were even denied that.

Finally, the theme of corruption, politics and power abuse is something the whole novel
revolves around. There are basically two kinds of people existent in our society. Firstly, the
ones who hold too much of power and tend to misuse it in one form or another, generally and
the second kind being the common public, which is exploited too much by the first category
of people. The entire event of Emergency and the ‘supposed’ changes that had been brought
in by its stringent applications caused nothing but horrors to the masses, let alone the idea of
their lives improving. A top level power play took place at the expense of the lives of the
common people. The general dislike towards the emergency and its application has been
displayed throughout the novel, by means of various characters, which could not do anything
more than grumbling about the circumstances and the negative effects in which their lives
were affected by the Emergency. The period of Emergency saw a rapid rise in the number of
custodial deaths. Avinash, Maneck’s college friend, was claimed to have died in police
custody, although the police tried to cover it up by claiming it to be a death by train accident.
The police were allowed to arrest people without warrant and more often than not, the person
arrested was subjected to torture in the prison. Blatant violation of human rights is something
that need not be specifically pointed out as it was a commonplace incident and the more
dismal part is that the people had no recourse available to them for the injustices meted out to
them. The Sikh driver’s tragic description, to Maneck when he had come to India in 1984,
after the death of the PM, of the fragile condition of the nation, at large, and Sikhs, in
particular, well brought out the misuse of political powers, which was inherently wrong on a
moral level. All these issues portray a stark contrast to the progressive India that we aspire to
be and, in one sense, are well on the way to it and the ground realities where the people are
deprived of the bare minimum rights that they have.

There were some writing techniques which the author used and appealed to me very much.
Firstly, ‘The City by the Sea’ and the ‘PM’ was never named in the book. Though the
descriptions of it make it quite obvious to who was the person referred to and the city referred
to be Mumbai, the wilful silence on the name might be a hint to the idea that the misuse of
power is never restricted to a specific place or a person. It’s a general human nature to get
enticed into misusing the power and hence, the tragic conditions might have arisen with
anyone, in general. Another thing that drew my attention was the bits of clothes Dina used to
save every time. She made a beautiful quilt out of it eventually, which she wanted to give to
Om’s wife, after Om married but, this could never materialise. But the quilt can be seen as an
accurate description of life. With the variety of colours and pieces present in it, it depicts the
variety of incidents and people we come across in life. Not all of them need to be similar or
positive; nonetheless, each one of them is important for shaping our personality and making
us what we are.

It’s a beautiful book with a range of different emotions which cannot be appropriately
described by mere use of words. One needs to live it to feel it.
 ISSUE ANALYSIS
S OCIO -E CONOMIC R IGHTS UNDER I NDIAN C ONSTITUTION
Right to Food is a part of the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in the Indian
Constitution. In Chameli Singh v. State of UP (1996), a three-judge bench of the Supreme
Court had held:

“In any organised society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting
only the animal needs of man… Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society
implies the right to food, water, decent environment education, medical care and
shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilised society”

Having said that, I would want to venture into exploring the conditions of the Dalits and
Adivasis as far as their food security is concerned. According to the survey reports released
by Indian Institute of Dalit Studies (IIDS), a vast percentage of the total number of people
affected by hunger is that of Dalits and Adivasis. Does that happen merely due to the poverty
of these communities, or is there caste discrimination pertinent? Is there legal recourse
available to them and if there is, then, how accessible it is for them, keeping in mind that they
are those part of the Indian population that are denied even something as basic as food? These
are some of the questions which I would be exploring and attempting to answer in the course
of this paper.

Food security has been defined, by the World Health Organization (WHO), ‘as a situation
when all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient and nutritious
food that meets their dietary needs and food preference for an active and healthy life’. Every
time we talk about India being a progressive democracy, we might have just forgotten about
the fact regarding the number of people going hungry everyday in India. Half of the world’s
total population of hungry people live in India. According to FAO estimates in ‘The State of
Food Security and Nutrition in the World, 2017’ report, 190.7 million people are
undernourished in India. Particularly, hard hit are the Dalits (the Scheduled Castes) and
Adivasis (the Scheduled Tribes). Levels of malnutrition are highest amongst these sections.
About 3000 starvation deaths every year are documented by NGOs. The vast majority of
those dying by starvation are scheduled caste and scheduled tribes.

Dalits comprise 16.6% of the Indian population, according to the 2011 census. The census
gave us a number that there were nearly 201.4 million people belonging to the Dalit
categories. Now, when we combine these facts with another set of facts, we might get a fairly
good idea of what a precarious situation the Dalits find themselves in. According to the
National Human Rights Commission Report on the Prevention and Atrocities against
Scheduled Castes, 37% of the Dalits live below poverty line in India. More than half (54%)
of their children are undernourished, 21% are severely underweight and 12% die before
attaining the age of five years. Furthermore, a 2011 study published in the Economic and
Political Weekly, show that the underweight rates are 53% higher for Dalit children as
compared to Hindu Upper Castes. The figure tends to be even higher for the Adivasis at
69%.1

Now, a critical analysis of the numbers provided in the above two paragraphs would prove
my point that more than half, a significant majority, of the Indian population that go hungry
and die of starvation belong to the Dalit and the Adivasi backgrounds. Thus, I would
conclude that the mere reason of them going hungry cannot be economic restraints alone.
They face vehement caste biases every day and this contributes as a major reason of the food
insecurity that they find themselves in.

Now, the government has been taking up several programmes to secure the Right to Food of
the Indian population like The Mid-Day Meal Scheme for the school children, the Integrated
Child Development Scheme, NREGA, and a pension scheme and a free grain for the destitute
persons above the age of 65 years.2 Additionally, there have been Public Distribution Systems
that have been established in several states of the country which facilitates the supply of food
grains and essential commodities to a large number of poor people through a network of Fair
Price Shops at a subsidised price on a recurring basis. But, the benefits of these programmes
do not really reach the Dalit and the Adivasi population. According to a research done by
Sukhdeo Thorat, who happens to be a Director at Indian Institute of Dalit Studies and Joel
Lee, a researcher at IIDS, the caste discrimination that the Dalit face is not something
exceptional or sensational. It is a commonplace and the evidences of it have been well
recorded in their research paper.3

The findings of the IIDS survey conducted in 2003 across 531 villages of five states, namely
Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, expose the patterns of
exclusion and caste discrimination that afflict the Mid-Day Meal Scheme (MMS) and Public
Distribution System (PDS). The physical access to the MMS is restricted because most of the
mid-day meals are held in dominant caste localities and hence, to avail the benefits of the
Scheme, the Dalit children have to enter areas of heightened vulnerability, tension and threat,
which is obviously avoided generally. The data provided in the report encompasses both, the
cases of exclusion as well as the cases of inclusion with an unequal treatment, and it states
that:

“Looking first at the aggregate data, in which all forms of caste-based exclusion and
discrimination are considered together, 52 per cent of respondent villages from
Rajasthan, 24 per cent from Andhra Pradesh, and 36 per cent from Tamil Nadu
(giving a three-state average of 37 per cent) report that there is a problem of caste
discrimination in the MMS in their village.”

A more intense form of segregation was visible at some places where the Dalit children and
the dominant caste children were served separate meals altogether. Furthermore, the teachers
discriminate amongst the students by giving insufficient or inferior food to the Dalit children.

We can now move on to explore the caste discrimination pertinent in the Public Distribution
System. The physical location of the shops where PDS is applicable is a major factor
concerning the Dalit access to the benefits of the PDS. The numbers do not paint a very rosy
picture in this regard as well. Major forms of discriminatory practices followed are:
discrimination in quantity, discrimination in price, caste-based favouritism followed by the
PDS dealer and the practices of ‘untouchability’ by the PDS dealer. On an average, nearly
half of the Dalit population in the surveyed villages report caste-based favouritism by the
PDS dealer in the distribution of the goods and in numerous forms. The goods are made
unavailable to the Dalits and supplied to the people from dominant castes. In some places, the
Dalit communities are served only on arbitrarily designated “Dalit days”, which are once or
twice a week and that too with reduced hours. Untouchability is openly practiced, in defiance
to the Anti-Untouchability Act of 1955, which should have serious legal implications for the
government.

Having explored the various facets of caste discrimination pertinent in the country, to the
disadvantage of the Dalits and Adivasis, we can say that the food insecurity that the Dalits
and the Adivasis face is not just due to their poor economic conditions, but is also largely
affected and regulated by the blatant discrimination that they face on the basis of their castes.
They are entitled to food as per the government schemes but, they do not get to avail that
right because of the societal conditions. In such a scenario, their economic conditions don’t
even come under consideration.

Furthermore, the imperialist-dictated policies of liberalisation, privatization and globalization

by the ruling class of the country during the last few decades have aggravated the problems of
the Dalits and other backward classes by many manifolds. 4 Their issues go unreported
because they form a very small part of the national politics and hence, they even do not find a
voice in the Indian media. 5

Now, we shall venture into some case laws which establish Right to Food as a legal right of
the people and hence, enforceable in the Court of Law. In Swaraj Abhiyan v Union of India
(2016), the Supreme Court stated that:

“There can be no doubt that the right to food is actually a constitutional right and not
merely a statutory right… In any event, even if the right to food is a statutory right, it
would be the obligation of the State to make all possible efforts and some more to
ensure that to the extent possible, adequate food grains are available to all and
particularly to those in drought affected areas.”

In the Right to Food case (People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India, 2001), the
Supreme Court had ruled that it was the responsibility of the government to see to it that no
one went hungry and it was stated that:

“In our opinion, what is of utmost importance is to see that food is provided to the
aged, infirm, disabled, destitute women, destitute men, who are in danger of
starvation, pregnant and lactating women and destitute children, especially in cases
where they or members of their family do not have sufficient funds to provide food for
them. In case of famine, there may be shortage of food, but here the situation is that
amongst plenty there is scarcity. Plenty of food is available, but distribution of the
 same amongst the very poor and the destitute is scarce and non-existent leading to
malnourishment, starvation and other related problems.”

Thus, it is adequately established that the Right to Food is a constitutional rights of every
Indian and that includes the Dalits and the Adivasis. And hence the discrimination that they
face is a violation of their legal rights in various senses and theoretically, they have recourse
in the Court of Law.

Now, the question remains that how accessible is the legal recourse available to these
populations. In my opinion, the legal recourse seems to be a very distant dream for a Dalit
who is deprived of something as basic as food. Though the State offers free legal services to
these people from the marginalised backgrounds, by creating institutions like NALSA, there
isn’t much widespread awareness amongst the people about the rights they posses. Moreover,
the voices of this part of our population stay unheard by the media of our nation and the
politicians turn towards them, without fail, every five years for the votes and then take a
“sabbatical” from serving their basic interests.

Hence, I would conclude by saying that the caste discrimination which the Dalits and the
Adivasis face, with respect to their food security, is not something which isn’t easily
perceivable. It is supposed to be a primary responsibility of a welfare state to provide
something as basic as food to its people, irrespective of their caste and tribe. Every time a
death occurs due to hunger, the Indian democracy must hang its head in shame.

ENDNOTES:
1. Nidhi Sadana Sabharwal, Caste, Religion and Malnutrition Linkages, Vol. 46.
2. Right to Food, Human Rights Law Network;
http://www.hrln.org/hrln/right-to-food.html
3. Sukhdeo Thorat & Joel Lee, Caste Discrimination and Food Security Programmes,
Vol. 40.
4. Sallen Das, Food Insecurity among Dalit Communities in India: Searching the Root
Causes and Dimensions, Vol. 4.
5.  Shoaib Daniyal, Hunger is India’s greatest problem even today. So why don’t we
ever hear about it?
https://scroll.in/article/819052/hunger-is-indias-greatest-problem-even-today-so-why-
dont-we-ever-hear-about-it