Swaraj Abhiyan General Secretary Ajit Jha S/O Late Yogendra Jha vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Agriculture And Farmers Welare Secretary

Ø/ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.5 SECTION PIL(W) (Part Heard) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 857/2015 SWARAJ ABHIYAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With application for interim directions and office report) (For final disposal) Date : 24/10/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney General Mr. P.S. Narasimha, ASG UOI Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv. Mr. Ajit Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv. Ms. Movita, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv. Mr. M.K. Maroria, Adv. Ms. Akhila, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, AOR A.P. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Chattisgarh Mr. Jugal Kishore Gilda, Adv. Gen. Mr. A.P. Mayee, AOR Mr. A. Selvin Raja, Adv. Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv. Ms. Aagam Kaur, Adv. Haryana Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Anil Grover, AAG Ms. Noopur Singhal, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR 1 Jharkhand Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Mohd. Waquas, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv. Karnataka Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Lagnesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv. M.P. Ms. Prachi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya, Adv. Mr. C. D. Singh, AOR Maharashtra Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Mahaling Pandarge, AAG. Mr. Nishant Katneshwarkar, AOR Odisha Mr. Umakant Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR Mr. Niranjan Saha, Adv. Rajasthan Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Telangana Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. Baskula Athik, Adv. U.P. Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AAG Mr. Vinay Garg, AOR Dr. Dinesh Rattan Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Deepam Garg, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The submission of the learned Attorney General is that the petitioner has made its intention clear to continue as a wing of a political party, if not a political party itself. In view of this, he submits that the petitioner should not be further associated with this public interest litigation. We would like to hear the submissions of the learned Attorney General as well as learned counsel for the petitioner in detail on 2

this subject. List the matter on 1 st December, 2016 at 10.30 am. We have gone through the affidavit / contempt petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. For present, we are confining ourselves to the implementation of the directions with regard to the National Food Security Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act'). It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that Sections 15 and 16 of the Act are not being complied with by the State Governments in letter and spirit despite our directions. Insofar as Section 15 is concerned, the State Governments have not framed any Rules at all for the appointment or designation of the District Grievance Redressal Officer or the qualifications for appointment as District Grievance Redressal Officer. All that has been done is that Joint Collectors of Districts, District Collectors, Deputy Commissioners of Districts etc. have been given additional responsibility as District Grievance Redressal Officer. Since they are the ones who are in-charge of the implementation of the Act, making them persons to whom a grievance can be addressed against them does not serve any purpose at all. Similarly, with regard to Section 16 of the Act dealing with appointment of State Food Commission, we find that the State Governments have appointed Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as State Food Commissions. This is most unsatisfactory and hardly in consonance with the provisions of the Act, particularly, the letter and spirit of the provisions of the Act. We have pointed out to the learned Attorney General that it appears that the States do not seem to be fully on board with 3

regard to the implementation of a statute solemnly enacted by Parliament, an extremely unfortunate situation has arisen. To get over this unfortunate situation created by the State Governments in violating a statute enacted by Parliament, and continuing a stalemate caused by this unfortunate situation, it would be appropriate if the Central Government could consider framing Model Rules under Section 15 and Section 16 of the Act so that the law enacted by Parliament is given some teeth and Parliament is given some respect. Learned Attorney General says that he would like to take instructions in this regard and get back to us on 28.10.2016 at 2.00 pm. With regard to para 30 (3) of Swaraj Abhiyan-II, the learned Attorney General says that a necessary affidavit will be filed by 27.10.2016 explaining the position at law.. It is submitted by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner that a letter dated 22.09.2016 was addressed to Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor General. The information sought for in that letter should be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner within four weeks except where it is not available. List on 28.10.2016 at 2.00 pm. (Meenakshi Kohli) (Jaswinder Kaur) Court Master Court Master 4