The Supreme Court on Thursday junked an appeal challenging the Lakshadweep administration’s 2021 decision to drop meat from the midday meal menu in schools in the Union Territory (UT), saying the appellant had not pointed out a breach of any legal provision.
Terming it a “policy decision” which “would not come within scope of judicial review”, a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi said “it is not within” its “domain to decide as to what would be the choice of food for children of a particular region”.
Most Read
Jawan box office collection day 7: Shah Rukh Khan’s blockbuster to pass Rs 700 cr worldwide gross today, delivers biggest first-week haul in Hindi film history
US assures action after India calls for probe into video showing Seattle police officer laughing at student’s death
The Kerala High Court had in September 2021 dismissed the PIL which challenged the decision to drop meat from the school meals as well as the decision to close down dairy farms in the UT.
Upholding the high court order, the Supreme Court said, “We do not find any error in the judgment of the Kerala High Court in dismissing the public interest litigation. So far as the midday meal is concerned, the administration has retained non-vegetarian items like egg and fish, which Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj submits is available in abundance in the said islands. What is being questioned in this appeal is primarily a policy decision of the administration and no breach of any legal provision has been pointed out. It is not within the court’s domain to decide as to what would be the choice of food for children of a particular region. There is no scope of guesswork by the law courts on that count.”
The bench said that “the court will have to accept the administrative decision in this regard unless some outstanding arbitrariness is pointed out. As we have already indicated, there is no legal breach so far as the decisions impugned are concerned. We accordingly dismiss the appeal…This policy decision would not come within scope of judicial review.”
