Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Lakshadweep Administration’s Decision to Drop Meat From School Mid-Day Meal Menu

A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi was hearing a special leave petition challenging a September 2021 decision of the Kerala High Court to dismiss this public interest litigation (PIL) petition. In May last year, the Supreme Court, while agreeing to take the appeal on board, granted the petitioner interim relief by issuing a stay on the operation of orders under challenge. The union territory administration, however, strongly contested this, arguing that it was a ‘policy decision’ in which judicial review could not be countenanced.

On the last occasion, Additional Solicitor-General KM Nataraj shared his misgivings about the entire process being brought to a ‘standstill’ as a result of the apex court’s stay order, besides attempting to defend the decision as a matter of policy. On the other hand, Senior Advocate IH Syed, appearing for the public interest litigant, disputed the archipelago administration’s claim, saying that it went against the union government’s policies on the mid-day meal scheme.

During today’s hearing, Syed pointed out that the steering committee decided to drop non-vegetarian items like chicken, beef, and other meat from the menu despite expert advice to the contrary. In this connection, he stressed that the present menu with chicken, beef, and other meat has been served to school-going children in the archipelago since the 1950s, even before the introduction of the national mid-day meal scheme. The mid-day meal menu, he argued, should be determined on the basis of the cultural identity and gastronomic preferences of the children of different regions. Syed also challenged the closure of dairy farms on grounds of a policy pamphlet issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry envisaging the promotion of dairy and animal husbandry industries in the islands.

Countering this, ASG Nataraj argued that the nutritional value prescribed under the National Food Security Act, 2013, was being maintained, pointing to the availability of eggs and fish in the mid-day meal menu. To justify the union territory administration’s decision to shut down the government-run dairy farms in the islands, Nataraj told the bench that these farms were haemorrhaging public money and had become financially unsustainable.

Despite the public interest litigant’s fervent appeals to set aside the union territory’s orders excluding chicken, beef, and other meat from the mid-day meal menu and directing the closure of the state-run dairy farms, the Justice Bose-led bench declined to interfere on grounds of the limited scope of judicial review in matters within the realm of executive policy. After hearing the submissions made by both the counsel, the bench pronounced –

“We do not find any error in the judgment of the Kerala High Court in dismissing the public interest litigation. So far as the mid-day meal is concerned, the administration has retained non-vegetarian items like egg and fish, which ASG Nataraj submits is available in abundance in the said islands. What is being questioned in this appeal is primarily a policy decision of the administration and no breach of any legal provision has been pointed out. It is not within the court’s domain to decide as to what would be the choice of food for children of a particular region. There is no scope of guesswork by the law courts on that count. The court will have to accept the administrative decision in this regard unless some outstanding arbitrariness is pointed out. As we have already indicated, there is no legal breach so far as the decisions impugned are concerned. We accordingly dismiss the appeal [since] this policy decision would not come within scope of judicial review.”

After orally dictating the order in court, Justice Bose also said in parting, “We cannot import personal preferences in policy matters.”

Background

In 2021, chicken and other meat was banned from the midday meals of schoolchildren by the newly formed administration of the Lakshadweep union territory. Not only this, in the same year, the archipelago administration also directed the immediate closure of all dairy farms run by the Department of Animal Husbandry and disposal of the bulls, calves, and other animals through public auction. This move was resisted by a local lawyer Ajmal Ahmed, who approached the Kerala High Court in a writ petition.

After initially issuing a stay on the administration’s orders, a high court bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Shaji P Chaly – both of whom have retired since – dismissed Ahmed’s plea in September, 2021, observing that the nutritional value of the food was relevant and not the kind, under the national midday meal scheme.

In dismissing the petition, the court accepted the administration’s argument that the National Food Security Act, 2013 did not mandate the supply of a non-vegetarian diet to schoolchildren and that the menu was altered to match the local availability of food. The administration’s argument on the dairy farms being financially unviable also found favour with the division bench of the Kerala High Court. In view of these contentions, the bench ruled that there was no ‘arbitrariness’ or ‘illegality’ in the impugned orders.

Against this order of dismissal, Ahmed approached the top court in a special leave petition, in which it was, inter alia, contended that altering the food menu violated the right to choice of food under Article 21 of the Constitution. Not only did a bench headed by former Supreme Court judge Indira Banerjee issue notice in May 2022, but it also directed that the interim stay issued by the high court on the administration’s orders would continue to operate.

Case Details

Ajmal Ahmed v. Union of India & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19225 of 2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order