Scholarlink

This study examines the pivotal role of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in advancing food security and the right to livelihood in India, particularly through judicial activism. By exploring landmark cases such as PUCL v. Union of India (2001) and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the research highlights the judiciary’s influence in transforming socioeconomic rights into enforceable legal entitlements. Employing a doctrinal methodology, the study analyzes judgments, statutes, and welfare policies like the National Food Security Act (NFSA) to assess their effectiveness. Findings reveal that judicial interventions have catalyzed policy reforms and improved governance in schemes like the Public Distribution System (PDS) and Mid-Day Meal Scheme. However, systemic inefficiencies, corruption, and limited beneficiary awareness remain persistent challenges. The study underscores the importance of collaborative efforts between the judiciary, executive, and civil society to bridge implementation gaps. While emphasizing the judiciary’s transformative potential, it also identifies limitations in translating judicial mandates into tangible social outcomes. The research offers a comprehensive analysis of PILs’ social implications, contributing original insights into the interplay between judicial activism, governance, and human rights.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Public Interest Litigation on Food Security and the Right to Livelihood

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2026年

查看全文
  • Insha Goel Vats

摘要

This study examines the pivotal role of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in advancing food security and the right to livelihood in India, particularly through judicial activism. By exploring landmark cases such as PUCL v. Union of India (2001) and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the research highlights the judiciary’s influence in transforming socioeconomic rights into enforceable legal entitlements. Employing a doctrinal methodology, the study analyzes judgments, statutes, and welfare policies like the National Food Security Act (NFSA) to assess their effectiveness. Findings reveal that judicial interventions have catalyzed policy reforms and improved governance in schemes like the Public Distribution System (PDS) and Mid-Day Meal Scheme. However, systemic inefficiencies, corruption, and limited beneficiary awareness remain persistent challenges. The study underscores the importance of collaborative efforts between the judiciary, executive, and civil society to bridge implementation gaps. While emphasizing the judiciary’s transformative potential, it also identifies limitations in translating judicial mandates into tangible social outcomes. The research offers a comprehensive analysis of PILs’ social implications, contributing original insights into the interplay between judicial activism, governance, and human rights.