The Supreme Court today slammed the Gujarat government for not implementing the National Food Security Act meant for helping people living below the poverty line.
“Why Gujarat is not implementing the law that is applicable to the whole of India? Is Gujarat not part of India? Tomorrow, some other states can say they are not going to implement the CrPC, IPC and the Evidence Act,” a Bench comprising Justices MB Lokur and NV Ramana remarked.
The Bench was hearing a PIL by NGO Swaraj Abhiyan seeking a directive to the drought-hit states to implement the food security law, the rural employment guarantee scheme (MNREGA) and mid day meal plan.
The apex court took Gujarat to task after being informed that the state government had not implemented the pro-poor law. It posted the next hearing in the case for February 10 to enable the states to file their response to the petition, giving details of the steps being taken to help the drought-hit people.
At the last hearing, the SC had directed Haryana and 11 other states to identify the drought-hit areas and provide details of the relief measures being taken to help the people in distress by giving them essential commodities through ration shops and 150-day work a year under MGNREGA.
Arguing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan had pleaded that the states should study the rainfall data and identify the drought-hit villages, tehsils and districts so that the sufferings of the affected people could be ameliorated. The petitioner identified the other states as Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Odisha, Jharkahand, Bihar and Chhattisgarh.
“Why Gujarat is not implementing the law that is applicable to the whole of India? Is Gujarat not part of India? Tomorrow, some other states can say they are not going to implement the CrPC, IPC and the Evidence Act,” a Bench comprising Justices MB Lokur and NV Ramana remarked.
The Bench was hearing a PIL by NGO Swaraj Abhiyan seeking a directive to the drought-hit states to implement the food security law, the rural employment guarantee scheme (MNREGA) and mid day meal plan.
The apex court took Gujarat to task after being informed that the state government had not implemented the pro-poor law. It posted the next hearing in the case for February 10 to enable the states to file their response to the petition, giving details of the steps being taken to help the drought-hit people.
At the last hearing, the SC had directed Haryana and 11 other states to identify the drought-hit areas and provide details of the relief measures being taken to help the people in distress by giving them essential commodities through ration shops and 150-day work a year under MGNREGA.
Arguing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan had pleaded that the states should study the rainfall data and identify the drought-hit villages, tehsils and districts so that the sufferings of the affected people could be ameliorated. The petitioner identified the other states as Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Odisha, Jharkahand, Bihar and Chhattisgarh.
