SPPU Solved Question Papers
Health and Food Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 5
Oct 2025 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 5 Health and Food Law Oct 2025 Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 6 November 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Savitribai Phule Pune University. It is not affiliated with Savitribai Phule Pune University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Savitribai Phule Pune University at the Oct 2025 examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Savitribai Phule Pune University set it at the Oct 2025 examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the Oct 2025 examination, reproduced as Savitribai Phule Pune University set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 70 · 13 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer any two questions from Part-A. Each question in Par-A is for 15 marks. (2) Answer any three questions from Part-B. Each question in Part-B is for 10 marks. (3) Answer any two questions from Part-C as directed . Each question in Part-C is for 5 marks. (4) Figures to the right indicate full marks.
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
SECTION I
PART A
Answer any two · 30 Marks
Q1)Explain the constitutional framework that supports the ‘Right to Food’ in India. How has the judiciary expanded its scope through public interest litigation?[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: that the Constitution does not name a right to food; the constitutional framework (Articles 21, 39(a), 47, and 32 and 226); how the Court read food and nutrition into Article 21 (Francis Coralie Mullin, Shantistar Builders, Chameli Singh); how public interest litigation widened the right (the PUCL right to food case, the tools of PIL); the international obligations; the National Food Security Act 2013; and the limits.
Introduction
The Constitution does not use the words "right to food". Yet food is the first need of human life. The Supreme Court has filled this gap by reading the right to food and nutrition into Article 21, which protects the right to life. Parliament later gave it a statutory form in the National Food Security Act 2013.
1. The Directive Principles
Two Directive Principles deal with food and nutrition:
- Article 39(a) directs the State to secure for citizens "the right to an adequate means of livelihood".
- Article 47 makes it a primary duty of the State to raise "the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people" and to improve public health.
Directive Principles cannot be enforced in a court (Article 37). So the Court has used them to give content to Article 21, which can be enforced.
2. How the Court read food into Article 21
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608. A detainee challenged the strict limits on meeting her lawyer and family. The Court held that the right to life "includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter". This was the first clear statement that nutrition is part of life under Article 21.
M/s. Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame, AIR 1990 SC 630. In a case on housing for the weaker sections, the Court said: "Basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three, food, clothing and shelter." The right to life "would take within its sweep the right to food".
Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., decided 15 December 1995. The Court said: "Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter."
3. The right to food litigation
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2001. In 2001, the poor in Rajasthan were not getting the food relief promised under the State's Famine Code. At the same time the Food Corporation of India held huge stocks of grain. The Supreme Court passed an interim order on 28 November 2001. It directed the States to identify poor families and supply them grain, and to implement the Antyodaya Anna Yojana. It also directed cooked mid-day meals in government and government-assisted primary schools. The Court treated these schemes as entitlements under Article 21, not charity. The case was kept open and many further orders followed. It is the main reason food is now treated as a right in India.
A wider principle. In Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, 1992 AIR 1858, decided 30 July 1992, the Court described the right to life as "the compendious expression for all those rights which the Court must enforce because they are basic to the dignified enjoyment of life". Food is the most basic of these.
How public interest litigation expanded the right
The right to food grew mainly through public interest litigation (PIL). Three features of PIL made this possible.
- Relaxed standing. Any public-spirited person or organisation may petition on behalf of the poor, who cannot reach the court themselves. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802, the Court explained that the right to live with dignity draws on the Directive Principles. It includes protection of the health and strength of workers, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. The same reasoning was later applied to nutrition.
- Continuing mandamus. In the PUCL case the Court did not give one final judgment. It kept the case open for years and passed interim orders from time to time, watching how they were carried out.
- Commissioners and monitoring. The Court appointed Commissioners to monitor the food schemes and report to it. This turned court orders into a working system of supervision.
What the PIL orders achieved.
- Food schemes such as the public distribution system, the mid-day meal scheme and the anganwadi services were treated as legal entitlements. They were no longer favours that the Government could withdraw at will.
- Cooked mid-day meals were directed to be provided in government and government-aided primary schools.
- Benefits were protected for the poorest groups.
The right to health as a companion right. In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1996 SC 2426, the Court held that failure to provide timely medical treatment violated Article 21. Food, nutrition and health were thus read together as parts of a dignified life.
4. International law
India is bound by international standards that recognise the right to food:
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Article 25, recognises a right to an adequate standard of living. That standard includes food.
- The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966, Article 11, recognises the right to adequate food. It also recognises the right to be free from hunger.
The Court reads Article 21 in harmony with such obligations, which strengthens the right at home.
5. The National Food Security Act 2013
Parliament responded by passing the NFSA. Its aim is food and nutritional security "to people to live a life with dignity". It gives:
- subsidised foodgrains to up to 75 per cent of the rural and 50 per cent of the urban population (s.3);
- free meals and a maternity benefit of at least Rs 6,000 to pregnant women and lactating mothers (s.4);
- free meals to children through anganwadis and schools (s.5), and special care for malnourished children (s.6); and
- a food security allowance if the food is not supplied (s.8), with a grievance machinery to enforce it (ss.14 to 16).
So the right moved from court orders to a statute.
6. How the right serves human dignity
- Life above mere survival. Francis Coralie Mullin makes nutrition part of a dignified life, not a favour.
- Protection for the most vulnerable. Pregnant women, children and the very poor get specific entitlements.
- Enforceability. A person denied food can now complain to the District Grievance Redressal Officer and the State Food Commission.
- Linked rights. Mid-day meals also help children stay in school, and nutrition protects health.
7. From scheme to right
| A scheme | A statutory entitlement |
|---|---|
| Made and unmade by executive order | Created by Parliament and changed only by Parliament |
| A benefit the Government may give | A right the person may claim |
| No remedy if denied | Grievance Officer, State Commission and food security allowance |
| Yields to any inconsistent law | Overrides inconsistent laws (s.36) |
8. The limits
- The Court has held that the content of these rights depends on the country's economic development (Francis Coralie Mullin).
- The right is to food at affordable prices and to specific entitlements, not to unlimited free food.
- Implementation depends on the States: identifying beneficiaries correctly and staffing the grievance bodies.
Conclusion
Conclusion. The right to food is not written in the Constitution. But the Supreme Court has made it a part of the right to life under Article 21. It did so by reading Article 21 with Articles 39(a) and 47, in cases like Francis Coralie Mullin, Shantistar Builders and Chameli Singh. The PUCL litigation turned food schemes into entitlements, and the National Food Security Act 2013 gave them the force of law. The right now protects the dignity of the poorest, though its reach still depends on the State's resources and administration.
The rest of the answers
The rest of the answers come with the SPPU B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Semester 5 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays open to everyone.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.