'We Expect HC To Act More Responsibly In Future' : Supreme Court Criticizes Allahabad HC For Passing Orders When SC Was Seized Of Issue

The Supreme Court recently criticised the Allahabad High Court for passing an interim order regarding the supply of food to lactating mothers and young children in Anganwadi centres, despite the Supreme Court being seized of the issue.

Commenting that the High Court's order was an "attempt to overreach" the Supreme Court, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan recorded their strong displeasure, and advised the High Court to act more responsibly in future.

"We would, thus, expect the High Court to act more responsibly in future," the Supreme Court stated in its order.

The High Court has been hearing a PIL since 2021 on whether the food distributed in Anganwadi Centres complies with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the rules known as Integrated Nutrition Support Programme- Shaksham Anganwadi and Poshan (2.0), Rules, 2022. It was alleged that the food supply is not up to the nutritional standards as contemplated in the law.

During one of the hearings, the petitioners told the High Court that the State Authorities had authorized the National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. (NAFED) to issue a tender for the procurement of some edible nutritious products for supply under the ICDS without strict compliance with the law. The Court then held that any procurement shall not be taken upon without seeking the Court's permission through its November 11, 2024 order.

This order was challenged before the Supreme Court. On December 19, 2024, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra stayed the High Court's order, observing that the High Court acted abruptly in passing this order.

Subsequently, before a bench of Justices Datta and Manmohan, Additional Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhati and AOR Yasharth Kant, for Appellants, brought to its notice that the High Court on December 20, 2024 modified its November 11 order on its own and issued directions to the States regarding procurement process.

Criticising the High Court's approach, the Supreme Court said :

"The course of action adopted by the High Court, we are afraid, was certainly neither warranted nor desirable on facts and in the circumstances. The High Court having been apprised of the order of this Court granting interim stay to the effect noted above and the special leave petition being made returnable in February, 2025, ideally, the High Court ought to have awaited further orders, since this Court was seized of the proceedings, instead of giving further interim directions as to how the appellants ought to act in the interregnum.

We also hasten to add that it was of no concern of the High Court as to whether the order dated 19th December, 2024 had been passed by this Court without being apprised of pendency of the application for modification and the fact that it was due to be listed the next day. The High Court ought to have desisted from making any observation, not knowing what contentions were raised on behalf of the appellants in course of the proceedings before this Court and what impressed this Court to grant interim stay."

The Court further observed:

"Be that as it may, the impugned interim order (contained in paragraph 5) being wholly unreasoned and having been abruptly passed more than three years after institution of the Public Interest Litigation, the same is liable to be and is, accordingly, set aside. All other interim directions passed in the Public Interest Litigation stand set aside. We make it clear that the appellants shall be entitled to implement the subject Scheme for supply of food items maintaining the requisite quality, to be used by lactating mothers and young children, till final disposal of the Public Interest Litigation."

Case Details: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. PRATYUSH RAWAT & ORS., Special Leave to Appeal C) No(s). 30405/2024