 "Madras HC stays cancellation of Greenpeace India registration")
The Supreme Court slammed the Centre on October 5 for inaction with regard to a direction it issued earlier, asking the states to supply food grain to the poor, under the National Food Security Act, in the drought-affected regions of the country.
A bench of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice N.V. Ramana warned the central government, saying "We will discharge the Union of India (as respondents from the case) if it is not able to do anything."
The apex court asked petitioner-organisation, Swaraj Abhiyan, to file an affidavit to flag a series of court directions that were issued on May 1, but were not followed by the drought-hit states across the country, thereby initiating of contempt proceedings against them.
During the course of hearing, the petitioner's counsel, Prashant Bhushan, said the contempt proceedings should not only be against the states concerned but also the Centre.
Taking a dim view of the Centre's approach, Justice Lokur said, "The moment we ask you questions, it is construed as if we are attacking the government of India."
Also Read
As Additional Solicitor General, P.S. Narasimha, sought to play down the 'small issue' of states not setting up 'Food Commissions' to monitor implementation of the act, Justice Lokur observed: "An Act of Parliament is being violated with impunity. (It) is not a small issue."
The bench asked Narasimha to explain what he had said in the affidavit on the matter.
Quoting from the Food Security Act 2013,the bench reminded the defense counsel that it had provisions that said the state governments would form a Food Commission to monitor and review of implementation of the Act
However, most state governments, taking recourse to the act's Section 18, have saddled other existing commissions with additional responsibility of the Food Commissions.
Section 18 provides for the designation of any commission or body to function as the state Food Commission.
Clearly exasperated over non-compliance with the apex court orders and the Centre informing the bench that it had sent a communication to the states on the matter, Justice Ramana said: "If this is the way the matter is going on, there is no need to hear it. We are wasting your time."
"An Act passed by Parliament has to be followed by the states. Let them say they don't bother about the Act," Justice Lokur said.
He asked Narasimha: "Is there a remedy under the Constitution if states don't comply with the laws passed by Parliament?"
The Additional Solicitor General pointed to Article 365 which says that when a state does not comply with the Centre's orders issued in exercise of its powers under the Constitution, the President can hold that a situation has arisen wherein the government of the said state cannot be carried on in accordance with the constitutional provisions.
Swaraj Abhiyan had sought the court's intervention for relief to the poor in drought-affected states, including Gujarat, Bihar and Haryana.
The three states have resisted the suggestion that they declare some of their districts as drought-affected.
Speaking about the failure of implementation , Justice Ramana further said, "We are not getting any feel or visible change except that funds have been released. The mechanism has failed. The Acts of Parliament and directions of the (top) court are not being implemented."
