SUMMARY OF THE FIRST REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER

[Note: This first report was submitted by Dr. N.C. Saxena, who was the single Commissioner at that time.]

The First Report of the Commissioner (Dr. N.C. Saxena), presented on 12 October 2002, focuses on the implementation of Supreme Court orders. The Report emphasizes that further steps need to be taken to make the Supreme Court orders effective. The Commissioner recommends employment, such as food-for-work programmes, as an important step towards food security and the elimination of hunger in India.

The Report presents a list of individuals and organizations nominated to assist the Commissioner in his work, as well as the role they are expected to perform. Clarifications related to the work of the Commissioner and assistants are provided.

A brief overview of some of the issues analysed in the First Report is presented below.

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

The Commissioner had sought information on compliance with the Supreme Court’s orders and on the implementation of welfare schemes from all the states and union territories. The Commissioner expressse concern that many states have either not replied to these letters or given very general and formal replies, without providing much substantive information. In this context, the Commissioner requested the Court to direct the Chief Secretaries/Administrators of all the states/UTs to respond promptly and to provide full information to him.

STARVATION DEATHS

The Commissioner is very concerned that despite the endeavours of the Supreme Court, hunger-related deaths have been taking place. Several cases from different parts of the country are presented. The Commissioner stresses that it should be clarified that it is the duty of each respondent government to prevent such deaths. If starvation deaths are confirmed it will be assumed that the Court’s orders have not been implemented. In such cases, the Chief Secretary/Administrator of the State/UT’s will be held responsible.

OFFTAKE OF FOODGRAINS AND RELATED PROBLEMS

A study shows that the increase in offtake of foodgrains for all the welfare schemes between 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 is just 6 million tonnes. This shows that something is holding back real progress. The offtake by many states is very low. The list of beneficiaries of various schemes was not being publicly displayed, as directed by the Supreme Court. The Commissioner also reports that foodgrains were not reaching fair price shops in time and that shopowners were distributing the grains only for three or four days a month.

FOOD FOR WORK

In some states those working on the Food for Work programmes were not receiving their wages for months. This delay was caused by the non-availability of grain under Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY).  Such delays seriously hamper the government’s efforts and cause avoidable hardships to the needy. It therefore emphasized the need for immediate allocation of foodgrains under the Food for Work programme. The Government of India must take the necessary steps to ensure timely payment of wages. Moreover, the Commissioner reiterates the petitioner’s claim for 20 million tonnes of free grain to states specifically for use in Food for Work programmes.

MID-DAY MEALS

The Commissioner stresses the importance of mid-day meals in primary schools. However, he notes with concern that several states have not yet complied with the Court’s order on this. Such states were requested to clarify the reasons for this delay.

EXPORTS

The issue of export of foodgrains by the government is also mentioned with concern. It is pointed out that it is regrettable that the government subsidizes the sale of foodgrains to foreign countries while hunger-related deaths were taking place in the country.

CHIEF SECRETARIES/ADMINISTRATORS RESPONSIBILITIES

The Commissioners emphasize the importance of a cooperative role of States and Union Territories in the fight against hunger. While reiterating that the Commissioner should not be viewed as a fault-finder, in case of persistent failure to comply with the orders of the Court the Chief Secretaries/Administrators would be held responsible for contempt of Court.