Introduction:
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently passed a strong and humane order in a matter that shook the conscience of the entire state. The case titled In the Matter of Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation v. The Chief Secretary & Others (WPPIL No. 75 of 2023) arose when the Court took suo motu cognizance of a shocking news report dated August 3, which appeared in a Hindi daily, alleging that schoolchildren of Government Middle School, Lachchhanpur, were served mid-day meals licked and contaminated by a stray dog. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru immediately treated the report as a matter of grave public concern and initiated proceedings under its public interest jurisdiction. The incident involved 84 children who had consumed the contaminated meal, necessitating administration of anti-rabies doses, and leading to widespread outrage about the lack of monitoring in implementation of the flagship Mid-Day Meal Scheme, also known as the Pradhan Mantri Poshan Shakti Nirman Yojna.
In the proceedings, the Court called upon the State authorities to explain the incident, identify the persons responsible, and suggest remedial measures. The State was represented by the office of the Chief Secretary and other officials, while the Court acted in its own motion to safeguard the fundamental rights of the children affected. The matter was treated as one not only of negligence but also of violation of dignity, right to life, and right to safe food under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments:
The State Government in its defence placed on record the Report of a two-member committee consisting of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Block Education Officer. The Report admitted lapses and revealed that the self-help group entrusted with preparing and serving meals had continued despite prior complaints from the Headmaster and teachers. After the incident, the self-help group was removed from the scheme and barred from receiving any further government benefits. Further, the Incharge Principal, Cluster Principal, Incharge Headmaster, Teachers, and the Cluster Coordinator were all suspended for failing to prevent the incident. The Director of Education imposed minor penalties on three teachers, thereby acknowledging dereliction of duty.
The State also highlighted measures taken after the incident. The Collector, Balodabazar, issued directions that kitchen sheds must be fenced, bleaching powder used twice a week, ingredients quality-checked, students’ hands compulsorily washed under teachers’ supervision, parents involved in monitoring food preparation, and strict action taken against non-compliant self-help groups. Moreover, the Directorate of School Education issued statewide guidelines to ensure hygiene, food safety checks, and adherence to the standards mandated under the central scheme. The State Government also informed the Court that it had requested the Union Government to revise the prices of food items supplied to Anganwadi Centres, as rising costs were making quality maintenance difficult, but no response had been received for over seven months.
Judgement:
On the other hand, the Court, while appreciating the subsequent remedial measures, observed that the negligence was glaring and inexcusable. The Bench stressed that when the State undertakes to provide mid-day meals to schoolchildren, it is bound by constitutional obligations to ensure the food is safe, nutritious, and free from contamination. The very purpose of the scheme is to enhance children’s health, not to expose them to life-threatening risks. The Court held that negligence in monitoring allowed such a shocking incident to occur, and mere suspension of teachers or removal of the self-help group could not erase the trauma inflicted on innocent children.
The Bench noted with anguish that despite the children being given three doses of anti-rabies vaccines, the mental agony of having consumed dog-licked food could not be overlooked. Such humiliation and fear in impressionable minds had to be compensated in a tangible manner. Relying on constitutional principles of right to life, dignity, and health, the Court ordered the State Government to pay ₹25,000 compensation to each of the 84 students within one month. The Court made it clear that this compensation was not charity but recognition of violation of fundamental rights.
The Court also impleaded the Secretary, Ministry of Women & Child Development, as a party, directing the Union to file a response within a week on why the price revisions sought by the State had not been addressed. The matter has been listed for further monitoring on September 17, 2025, demonstrating the Court’s resolve to oversee systemic improvements.
The judgment is significant because it addresses multiple dimensions—state negligence, accountability of implementing agencies, rights of children, and the duty of both State and Union to ensure effective functioning of welfare schemes. By granting compensation, the Court recognized that financial redress, though symbolic, could partly remedy the suffering of children. By demanding systemic changes, it ensured that similar incidents do not recur. The order also underscores that socio-economic rights such as safe food and health are integral to Article 21, and any violation thereof invites strict judicial intervention.