New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Lakshadweep administration's decision to shut down dairy farms and drop meat from the menu of mid-day meals in schools in the Union Territory. A bench comprising justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi observed that no breach of legality has been pointed out in the policy decisions.
The bench said it is not in the court's domain to determine what food should be eaten by children of a particular region. The bench told the counsel, representing the petitioner, that the Union Territory is not asking to change food habits, and they are changing what they are serving in schools in mid-day meals. The bench pointed out that under the Food Security Act, there may be a vested right for mid-day meals, but not the menu.
The top court made it clear that courts cannot interfere with such policy or administrative decisions and added that it did not find any error in the judgment of the Kerala High Court in dismissing the public interest litigation. The top court said so far as the mid-day meal is concerned, the administration has retained non-vegetarian items like egg and fish, which additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj submitted is available in abundance in the said islands.
The bench noted that the appeal primarily questions a policy decision of the administration and no breach of any legal provision has been pointed out. The bench said the court would have to accept the administrative decision in this regard unless some outstanding arbitrariness is pointed out.
The top court dismissed the appeal challenging a September 2021 decision of the Kerala High Court dismissing the petition in connection with the matter. The plea filed by Ajmal Ahmed R challenged the Lakshadweep administration's decision to shut down dairy farms and exclude meat from the menu of mid-day meals in schools in the Union Territory.
“We accordingly dismiss the appeal….. this policy decision would not come within the scope of judicial review”, said the top court. During the hearing, the bench queried the petitioner’s counsel if there was any vested right to have non-vegetarian food on the mid-day meal menu. The petitioner’s lawyer submitted that the food in mid-day meals should be culturally accepted and liked by the kids, who are mostly tribals.
The Supreme Court in May last year, granted the petitioner interim relief by issuing a stay on the operation of orders under challenge. The administration strongly contested that it was a ‘policy decision’ in which judicial review could not be countenanced.
