Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, on July 1, 2025, issued a significant order taking suo motu cognizance concerning the issue of malnutrition, obesity, and the consumption of unhealthy food affecting minor children, women, and citizens. The court registered the matter under the title "Saving the Minor Children, Women and Citizens from Malnutrition or Obesity which is Affecting their Physical and Mental Health" and directed the Union and State authorities to submit a report detailing the steps taken on the issue. The matter was listed for further hearing on July 30, 2025. The court observed that existing statutory frameworks such as the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, have not been implemented in their true spirit. Noting its constitutional duty, the court stated that government authorities are bound to ensure the health and well-being of the citizens by providing adequate nutrition and preventing the consumption of harmful food products.

The suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Rajasthan High Court in light of alarming concerns regarding the adverse effects of malnutrition and the increasing consumption of junk food among children and citizens. The matter addressed a wide range of issues, including the health implications of insufficient nutrition, the role of statutory schemes, and the enforcement of dietary standards.

Also Read: Fit Case For Furlough Release As Petitioner Has Completed 20 Years Of Uninterrupted Incarceration Without Remission | Supreme Court Orders Three Month Conditional Relief

The court recorded that the right to food and health are interconnected human rights, critical for a life of dignity. Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, was noted to encompass the right to nutritious food. The court referred to Article 47, a Directive Principle of State Policy, which mandates the State to raise the level of nutrition and public health.

Attention was drawn to various international instruments, including Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both of which recognize the right to adequate food and freedom from hunger.

The Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme, launched in 1975, was noted as a key initiative aimed at addressing the health and nutritional needs of children under six years and pregnant and nursing mothers. The court referenced prior directions issued by the Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 196 of 2001, where directives were given for effective implementation of the ICDS.

Further, the National Food Security Act, 2013 was cited as a landmark legislation that codifies the right to food. Section 4 of the Act entitles pregnant and lactating mothers to free meals and maternity benefits. Section 5 provides age-appropriate meals for children, while Section 6 mandates State Governments to address child malnutrition.

Schedule II of the Act details nutritional standards, such as 500 kcal and 12-15 g of protein for children aged 6 months to 3 years, and 600 kcal and 18-20 g of protein for pregnant and lactating women. The court stated that these standards must be strictly followed by both Central and State authorities.

The court observed a lack of compliance with these obligations, resulting in continued malnutrition and obesity. The matter also encompassed concerns about the spread of junk food and carbonated drinks among children.

The court stated, "Without food it is difficult to remember God and hunger eats into the ethos of culture." It referenced the Atharva Veda and Mahatma Gandhi to underline the sacred significance of nourishment.

It recorded, "Liberty cannot be there to a person having an empty stomach. The individual’s right to life will have no meaning if the State fails to provide adequate food or food articles." The court held that "not getting adequate and balanced nutritious food affects both physical and mental health leading to malnutrition."

Referring to the constitutional framework, the court observed, "The Government has a constitutional obligation to preserve human life and providing good health to its citizens is its primary duty."

Regarding statutory enforcement, it recorded, "Providing foodgrains as per the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 is a statutory obligation on the State."

On junk food, the court noted, "Junk food and carbonated drinks are unhealthy and cause obesity in children and their consumption negatively affects both the physical as well as the mental health."

It expressed concern that, "statutory authorities have turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to this issue and they have failed to discharge their duties in safeguarding the interest of the children."

Referring to the FSS Act, 2006, the court outlined the responsibilities of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), and cited its guidelines for school children. It noted the list of harmful foods including chips, fried foods, sugar-sweetened beverages, and fast foods, stating that "the consumption of HFSS foods should be restricted within and around school premises."

The court stressed the role of education, stating, "The Government holds wide ranging powers, under the Education Act, to issue directions ensuring the effective and efficient functioning of the education system and delivery of quality education."

On the issue of excessive mobile phone use, the court recorded, "Continuous exposure to mobile phones... is seriously hindering their physical and mental development." It remarked that children are relying on mobile phones for quick solutions, which is limiting their cognitive growth.

The court stated traditional food, noting, "Homemade food, especially recipes passed down from grandmothers, is highly valued for its nutritional benefits, cultural importance and ability to connect us to our roots."

It concluded with the observation, "This Court feels pain to observe that in spite of having the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006... they have not been implemented in their true spirit."

The court directed that the matter be registered as a suo motu petition titled: "Saving the Minor Children, Women and Citizens from Malnutrition or Obesity which is Affecting their Physical and Mental Health."

It issued notices to nine respondents, including the Union of India, Ministry of Food and Public Distribution, Ministry of Women and Child Development, FSSAI, Ministry of Education, and the State Government of Rajasthan through its Chief Secretary and relevant departments.

The court stated, "Issue notice to the respondents. Rule is made returnable by four weeks."

Also Read: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Eviction For Bonafide Requirement | Bonafide Requirement Must Be Seen On Date Of Initiation Of Eviction Process | Delay In Judicial Process Cannot Defeat Landlord’s Rights

It further ordered, "The Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan, Jaipur; the Secretary, Ministry/Department of Woman and Child Development, Union of India, New Delhi; the Principal Secretary, Ministry/Department of Woman and Child Development, State of Rajasthan, Jaipur; the Secretary, Ministry/Department of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Union of India, New Delhi; and the Principal Secretary, Ministry/Department of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution and Education, State of Rajasthan, Jaipur are directed to submit a report before this Court about the steps taken by them on the issue involved in this petition on the next date of hearing."

The matter was ordered to be listed on July 30, 2025 before the appropriate Public Interest Litigation Bench. A copy of the order was also directed to be sent to all respondents.

Case Title: Suo Moto: In Re: Saving the Minor Children, Women and Citizens from Malnutrition or Obesity which is Affecting their Physical and Mental Health

Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand