At first glance, what the Supreme Court said seemed pretty much right, socially and even politically. Distribute foodgrains to the starving poor rather than let tonnes of grain rot in the FCI’s warehouses, the court had told the Union government. But, in hindsight, it appears a bit jarring, as even the soft-spoken Prime Minister, Dr
Manmohan Singh, found out. At a freewheeling interaction with editors at his residence, the Prime Minister said the apex court should not get into the “realm of policy formulation”, which must remain the concern of policymakers and the government of the day. While he respected the sentiments behind the Supreme Court’s directive that a way must be found to ensure that the poor did not starve while foodgrain rotted, how would it be possible for the government to distribute free grain to an estimated 37 per cent of the population that lives below the poverty line? Besides, supplying free food would destroy incentives for farmers to work harder and produce more. And if that leads to a drastic fall in food production, there would be no food to distribute.
Dr Singh has argued his case well, though he might not have pleased those segments of left-wing academicians who always argue that our rich must not flinch from making any sacrifice to help feed the hungry poor. Luckily for the PM and the rest of the establishment, the court saw his reason. Within hours of that interaction, the same bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma which had issued that August 12 order to distribute free grains to the poor, said it was happy with the government’s “comprehensive” response. In the affidavit filed by solicitor-general Mohan Parasaran before the bench, it was stated that the government was allocating an additional 25 lakh tonnes of wheat/rice at BPL rates — `2 and `3 per kg — to the states over and above the 469.57 lakh tonnes already earmarked under the public distribution system, where government subsidies worked out to `11.29 per kg for wheat and `14.78 per kg for rice. Which meant the government was willing to increase PDS quotas but not dole out free grain. The storm has passed, the PM has made his point, and the judges are happy with more grain in PDS shops.
Our Constitution has clearly segregated the powers in administering this large democracy. While the legislature makes the laws, the executive implements them and the judiciary interprets those laws to ensure they do not violate the Constitution in letter or in spirit. Whenever the Supreme Court has stepped in to check legislative measures that it perceived ran afoul of the Constitution, the government of the day resorted to using its majority in Parliament to amend the Constitution and circumvent the ruling. A recent example is when the Tamil Nadu government sought legitimacy for its 69 per cent quota for OBCs, SCs and STs after the apex court judgment in the Mandal case said the overall ceiling should not exceed 50 per cent. There have been times when the government has gladly allowed the courts to “interfere in policy”, usually when the government can hide behind a court order to implement an unpopular scheme or project. Enforcing CNG in Delhi was done through a SC order though it was basically a policy decision for administrators. As a result, Delhi is now one of India’s least polluted cities.
While it may be argued that the Supreme Court, in this case of free foodgrains, might have overstepped its powers and caused yet another instance of questionable “judicial activism”, none can deny that but for the media expose of the foodgrains rotting in FCI warehouses and the court diktat that followed, Mr Sharad Pawar might not have thought it necessary to release additional PDS stocks for the poor.