JUDGMENT : (1) The subject matter of the present writ petitions filed in public interest is lack of proper implementation of ICDS Scheme resulting in malnutrition of the pregnant women, lactating mothers and children aged 6 months to 6 years. (2) An order was passed by this Court on 20.02.2025 wherein certain deficiencies in implementing the ICDS scheme were highlighted and directions were accordingly issued. In the spirit of the directions issued, a three-member Committee constituted by the Court was required to submit its report regarding the ground realities of implementing the Supplementary Nutrition Programme (SNP) on or before 25.03.2025 which period was extended thereafter looking to the ongoing progress. For beginning with the necessary exercise to draw the report, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was made payable to each member of the committee from the fund of U.P. State Legal Services Authority. The final report was filed by the Committee and the same was taken on record vide order dated 07.07.2025 which, for ready reference, is extracted below: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. 2. By a detailed order passed on 20.02.2025, a committee was constituted to submit the report on the implementation of ICDS scheme in the State of U.P. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 20.02.2025, the Committee has submitted its report through Chairman/Dr.G.C. Prakash, I.A.S. (Retd.), and the same is taken on record. The Chairman of the Committee is present to assist the Court. 4. Let all the parties be provided a copy of the report submitted by the Committee free of cost within two days who may file their views/submissions on the report within ten days so that the matter may be concluded in the light of submissions made. 5. Ms. Pallavi Singh, Advocate holding brief for Sri Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4/U.P.State Rural Livelihood Mission submitted that the opposite party No.4 does not wish to press the application for recall of the order dated 20.02.2025. Since the said application is not on record, the Registry is directed to place it on record on the next date of listing. The U.P. State Rural Livelihood Mission is directed to submit the complete details of 204 Self-Help Groups inclusive of their capacity building status. 6. Since the said application is not on record, the Registry is directed to place it on record on the next date of listing. The U.P. State Rural Livelihood Mission is directed to submit the complete details of 204 Self-Help Groups inclusive of their capacity building status. 6. Since the report as directed has come to be filed before this Court, therefore, the rights of the minor children upto the age of six years and lactating mothers under the ICDS scheme are bound to be viewed in the light of the relevant statutory provisions, on the vital areas of quality and quantity checks besides achieving the real target of service to the beneficiaries. 7. This Court after hearing the parties proceeds to frame the following questions for consideration:- (i) Whether the implementation of ICDS Scheme through 204 SHGs in the State of U.P. has an established base of processing units meeting the quantity and quality checks under the Rules and Regulations applicable in this behalf. (ii) Whether the supply of dry ration through NAFED as an interim measure stands in consonance with the scheme as well as the law applicable in the matter of implementing the ICDS Scheme. (iii) As to whether the accountability of SHGs for implementing the Scheme in absence of they being a juristic person, can be fixed upon the group collectively or severally and the procedure in this behalf. 8. We appreciate the efforts of the committee to have brought on record the relevant inputs and data and the exercise undertaken by the committee deserves to be acknowledged. For quantifying the expenditure incurred for travelling and other expenses, necessary order deserves to be passed within scope of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. 9. Any further modular change may not be effected by the opposite parties without seeking leave of the Court and without considering the report placed on record. The arrangement as affirmed by the Apex Court shall also remain operative until decision of the matter. 10. List/put up on 17.7.2025, for further hearing” (3) On taking the three member committee report on record, this Court framed three questions in paragraph-7 of the order extracted above and the matter was directed to be listed for further hearing. The arrangement as affirmed by the Apex Court shall also remain operative until decision of the matter. 10. List/put up on 17.7.2025, for further hearing” (3) On taking the three member committee report on record, this Court framed three questions in paragraph-7 of the order extracted above and the matter was directed to be listed for further hearing. (4) When the matter came up before this Court on 17.07.2025, learned counsel for the State raised an objection to the effect that further hearing of the matter be deferred as the State of U.P. had firstly filed an SLP before the apex court arising out of the order dated 20.02.2025 and secondly, the Court may not proceed until the application for recall of order dated 20.2.25 was decided. Until the date of passing of order dated 07.07.2025, the State Government neither raised any objection as regards the credentials of three member committee nor was the application for recall of order pressed. The UPSRLM had rather made a prayer for not pressing the recall application filed by them. (5) The Apex Court on hearing the SLP arising out of the order dated 20.2.2025, disposed of the same in terms of the following order on 21.7.2025:- “1. Delay condoned. 2. Mr. K. M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the 1 petitioner-State, submits that an application for recall of the impugned order dated 20th February, 2025 is pending on the file of the High Court; since such application is not being heard and decided, the petitioner-State has been compelled to approach this Court. 3. Presently, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition stands disposed of, without expressing any opinion on merits. 4. We are informed that the High Court has fixed 25th July, 2025 as the date for hearing Mr. K. M. Natraj. In view thereof, we observe that the High Court may consider the desirability of deciding the recall application first before proceeding with the matter on merits. 5. All points are kept open for being urged before the High Court. 6. K. M. Natraj. In view thereof, we observe that the High Court may consider the desirability of deciding the recall application first before proceeding with the matter on merits. 5. All points are kept open for being urged before the High Court. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.” (6) Looking to the fact that credentials of the committee members who had submitted the report were strongly questioned by the State of U.P., therefore, this Court deemed it proper not to rely upon the same and in alternative proposed to proceed with the matter on merit. Learned counsel for the parties conceded to the suggestion and proceeded to argue on merit. The recall application became irrelevant, therefore, did not call for any further order to be passed on the same. (7) The hearing of the case was thus resumed and learned counsel for the parties were heard at length on 23.07.2025, 24.07.2025, 28.07.2025 and finally the arguments concluded on 29.07.2025. The Apex Court’s order passed on 17.07.2025 mentioning date of hearing as 25.07.2025 instead of 23.07.2025 appears to be an inadvertent error, may be, due to wrong information given by the parties. (8) On the aspect of the quantum of legal fee/charges to be paid to the members of the Committee, learned counsel for the parties agreed for the exercise of discretion by the Court as the pain taken by the Committee to formulate an exhaustive report was conceded by all. (9) We accordingly direct the Secretary, State Legal Services Authority to pay each of the member of the Committee a sum of Rs. 50,000/- over and above the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, as was quantified at the initial stage, within a period of three months from the date of receiving a copy of this order. (10) Sri Nataraj, learned Senior Counsel for the State of U.P. based his exhautive arguments mainly on two points. It was firstly contended that in the matter of policy making in furtherance of ICDS Scheme, the State has unfettered powers to formulate the same and wisdom of policy makers is not amenable to judicial review unless the same is found to contravene or violate the mandate of law or rules and regulations framed by the Central Government under its rule making authority. (11) In this context, it was argued before us that the ICDS Scheme being a part and parcel of Food Security Act, 2013, is implemented by the State strictly in accordance with law and there is no room for interference on the questions framed by the Court. (12) Learned counsel for the State of U.P., in order to substantiate the argument put-forth, took us through various provisions of Food Security Act, 2013 as well as the Rules made thereunder to emphasize that the self-help groups, as were operating in the State of U.P. under the guidelines of State Rural Livelihood Mission (in short ‘SRLM’) are a permissible class or entity who are assigned the responsibility of implementing ICDS Scheme under the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the State and the U.P. State Rural Livelihood Mission. (13) It was further informed that the U.P. State Rural Livelihood Mission had provided a base of 204 Micro Enterprises for production of nutritional food, as per the standards fixed under the Statute and the same was supplied to the children below six years of age as well as the lactating mothers and pregnant women through the Anganwadi Centres. (14) In other words, the submission put-forth by learned counsel for the State of U.P. is to the effect that once the self-help groups are formed at the base level in the form of Micro Enterprises, the obligations are carried out by the SRLM under a MoU therefore there is sufficient compliance made by the State which stands compliant to the Statute and Rules framed thereunder. (15) According to the learned Senior Counsel, the very questions framed by this Court did not flow out of any incompliant situation, therefore, the very effort of judicial review on the questions framed was a futile exercise. (16) Learned counsel for Union of India has argued that the Central Government and the State are the two partners financing the ICDS Scheme and the State Government is bound to follow the rules and regulations framed by the Central Government. (17) Learned counsel for Union of India, in order to demonstrate that the nutrient food supplied to the children and lactating mothers has been specified by the Central Government, referred to various paras of the short counter affidavit filed by them which seek to re-emphasize on the observance of Rules and Regulations framed by the Central Government. (17) Learned counsel for Union of India, in order to demonstrate that the nutrient food supplied to the children and lactating mothers has been specified by the Central Government, referred to various paras of the short counter affidavit filed by them which seek to re-emphasize on the observance of Rules and Regulations framed by the Central Government. (18) Ms Deepa Ranjan, Director of U.P. State Rural Livelihood Mission was also heard in person and she brought to our notice that 204 micro-enterprises are functioning for the processing of nutrient food for the beneficiaries and the liability to the extent of 20% beneficiaries under the scheme was carried out by raising capital from amongst the members of the self-help groups working under the Scheme and the capital so raised was utilized for procurement and processing of the nutrient food by the aforesaid 204 enterprises which was delivered to the beneficiaries at the base level through Anganbadi centers. (19) It was also stated that the Micro Enterprises are registered units under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) having an ID issued under the GST, Act and necessary registration under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 was also ensured. (20) The details placed on record, however, do not show as to how 204 Micro Enterprises ever achieved the targeted processing of nutrient food and supply thereof to the respective Anganbadi Centers within their jurisdiction. The service actualised within the range of 20% beneficiaries assignment to SRLM under a MoU has remained deficient both in the matter of supply of dry ration and the hot cooked meal service remains zero as per the own portal of the State. The remaining 80% of the beneficiaries are supplied dry ration procured through NAFED which is impermissible under the Rules, 2022. (21) It is an admitted position given out to this Court by the officer present that hot cooked meal was not served in any of the Anganbadi Centers against 20% responsibility held by the SRLM through the support system of 204 Micro Enterprises and the resultant deficiency was carried forward over the succeeding months. This was an alarming information which was projected before this Court making the questions framed by the Court more relevant and of public importance. This was an alarming information which was projected before this Court making the questions framed by the Court more relevant and of public importance. Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Advocate, looking to the assistance of officer present has argued that any directions issued by this Court to effectuate the implementation of the scheme shall be duly honoured, which, in our humble view was unconvincing. (22) After closure of the submissions, the State has filed written submissions containing the following pleas:- “1. Present PIL is a Proxy; Credentials of petitioner questionable Petitioner in the instant case appears to have filed the instant petition as a proxy for big players having interplay with ICDS, operations in Southern India. The credentials of the Petitioner are itself misleading, incomplete and eye-brow raising. While the petitioner has declared that she is daughter of Shri Satya Prakash Mishra and is residing in Khiri, U.P., she has withheld her husband’s name, her financial background, or her income or the sources of income, the sources of funding for the present litigation before this Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court. a. The four experience certificates, at pages 45, 46, 47 & 48 of the WP) filed to show that she has worked as volunteer with NGOs are prima facie bogus and do not inspire any confidence. Two certificates (at pages 45 & 46) dated 02.02.2019 and 15.02.2020 issued from Lucknow do not even disclose as to in which project the Petitioner had volunteered and at which location, while she was undergoing education at Lakhimpur Khiri. b. Certificate at pages 47 & 48 of writ petition are even more mercurial having been issued by a trust and a society both located in Bangalore, Karnataka. c. These certificates do not even disclose the (I) dates or (ii) the period or (ii) the location or (iv) the program in which the Petitioner may have volunteered. 2. b. Certificate at pages 47 & 48 of writ petition are even more mercurial having been issued by a trust and a society both located in Bangalore, Karnataka. c. These certificates do not even disclose the (I) dates or (ii) the period or (ii) the location or (iv) the program in which the Petitioner may have volunteered. 2. Amicus curiae The appointment of Dr LP Mishra, a very seasoned and highly respected Advocate at the Bar, amicus curiae vide order 17.07.2025 cannot be said to be in accordance with law as he has filed his Vakalatnama in the instant case, with an application for impleadment representing a company, which company was going to be directly impacted if the tender conditions as suggested/proposed by the report of the committee were accepted as, in his submissions, the conditions of RFP as proposed in the report of the 3 member committee were tailor made for a particular company who, as per his preliminary submissions, was also the sponsorer of the insant proxy PIL. However, he was given extensive hearing on 29.07.2025. In such circumstances it may not be in fitness of proceedings to rely upon submissions of Dr.L.P. Mishra, Advocate as an amicus curiae as he could be in possessions of information shared by his client which may have resultant adverse impact on parties at lis. Also, his appearance in support of company only lends credence to the proxy nature of the instant writ petition who are using this court as a platform for gaining entry into ICDS operatives in UP. 3. Non affording of Opportunity of hearing to State of UP : Hurried closure of proceedings The hearing of the instant PIL was carried out in an extremely hurried manner without due opportunity of hearing to the State of UP, with this Hon’ble Court shutting out counsel form making submissions. Though the hearing on 29 th July, 2025 was stretched till 5:45 p,m but the mic of the learned Senior Counsel representing the State of UP present before the Hon’ble Bench was not even permitted to make any oral submissions and instead asked to furnish written submissions. Such denial of opportunity to both the learned counsel representing the State renders the proceedings contaminated and vitiated. In a matter of policy decision in which the Court may be lacking expertise sufficient opportunity ought to have been given which was wrongfully denied. 4. Such denial of opportunity to both the learned counsel representing the State renders the proceedings contaminated and vitiated. In a matter of policy decision in which the Court may be lacking expertise sufficient opportunity ought to have been given which was wrongfully denied. 4. No material on record to interfere in the policy domain of the State and Union a. The Hon’ble High Court while issuing notice in the present PIL at the very first instance vide order dated 13.11.2024 ordered “Director, Deference Food and Research Laboratory, Mysore having its network all over the country to make necessary study of Aaganbadi Centres in the State of U.P. both in the matter of procurement of specified nutritious food and supply thereof to the respective centres including all its aspects e.g. quantity, frequency of supply and its quality and the mechanism operating as on date. The delays in the supply, if any, may also be studied and apprised to the Court in the report so drawn as well as the cause of delays.” b. Although inquiry by the DFRL ordered ex-parte at the first instance, missed out on the fact that the aspects which have been ordered to be studied/inquired into by the DFRL fell under the “Policy Domain of the State”. The Department/State co-operated with DFLR for the inquiry. c. The report dated 07.01.2025 of the DFRL on record, vindicates the way in which the scheme is being implemented in the State of UP. d. The second recall application filed before the Hon’ble High Court on 23.07.2025 raised the issued w.r.t each of the 3 Members of the Committee and why their report is maligned and not acceptable. Upon highlighting the grounds as to why the report of the committee cannot be relied upon (especially with the chairman of the committee facing corruption allegations), the Hon’ble High Court agreed to not rrely upon the report, though no such finding was recorded in any subsequent order. e. Now that the report of the 3 member committee stands shelved/removed from record and is not to be referred to or relied upon, there survives no material except the report dated 07.01.2025 of the DFRL which only vindicates the way in which the scheme is being implemented in the State of UP, while suggesting some areas of improvement, which are being worked upon. 5. 5. The issues framed a. That while taking the report of the 3 Member Committee on record, the following 3 issues were framed for consideration: (i) Whether the implementation of ICDS Scheme through 204 SHGs in the State of U.P. has an established base of processing units meeting the quantity and quality checks under the Rules and Regulations applicable in this behalf. (ii) Whether the supply of dry ration through NAFED as an interim measure stands in consonance with the scheme as well as the law applicable in the matter of implementing the ICDS Scheme. (iii)As to whether the accountability of SHGs for implementing the Scheme in absence of they being a juristic person, can be fixed upon the group collectively or severally and the procedure in this behalf. b. That since the Hon’ble High Court is vehemently against the usage of SHGs for implementing the objectives of the Scheme it is essential to highlight the true structure of how SHGs fall in the amb it of functionaries in order to implement the scheme. c. The clarification has been provided in the Affidavit filed on behalf of UPSRLM as well as the documents received from the department. The following information comes to light while discussing the issue of using SHGs for implementation of the scheme: “The 204 Take Home Ration (THR) units are not run by the 204 SHGs but actually run by the 204 Association of Peron (AOP)/ SHG Micro Enterprises. Each AOP/SHG Micro Enterprises is formed by 300 SHGs of a block coming from all the 03 CLF of the block, who have collectively resolved to form a micro enterprise by signing a notarized agreement as mentioned in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for formation of AOP/SHG micro-enterprise issued by the government by the GO number 312/38-6-2021-308/LC/2020/|TC1 dated 17.07.2021 and GO number 541/38-6-2021-308/LC/2020/TC1 dated 20 October 2021.” d. Hence it is evident that the complete issue regarding the validity of the SHGs relies upon: (i) The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vaishno Mahila Bachat; (ii) The GO number 312/38-6-2021-308/LC/2020/TC1 dated 17.07.201; (iii) The GO number 541/38-6-2021-308/LC/2020/TC1 dated 20 October 2021. e. That, as has been stated by UPSRLM in its affidavit of compliance, the 204 THR Centres “are not run by SHGs” rather there is a system of SHG Microenterprises. e. That, as has been stated by UPSRLM in its affidavit of compliance, the 204 THR Centres “are not run by SHGs” rather there is a system of SHG Microenterprises. f. On structure: That with respect to 1 st issue, the key features of the schemes is that one woman member from each of the 10-20 rural poor household are brought under the Self-Help Group (SHG) Network. Women SHG group would have back-linkage arrangements. 0510 SHGs at the village level would be federated as village organization and 20-30 village organization are federated at the block level as a cluster level Federation (CLF) which is in such a way that each cluster level federation has around 300 SHGs office bearers federated in such a way that each administrative block has 04 cluster level federation representing all the SHGs formed in all the Gram Panchayats of the blocks. The SHG-VO-CLF is a pyramid structure which the SHGs are at the base of the pyramid, VO at intermediate level and CLF is at the top of pyramid. g. That for the 2 nd issue of consideration framed by the Honb’ble High Court in relation to the supply of Dry Ration i.e., “Whether the supply of dry ration through NAFED as an interim measure stands in consonance with the scheme as well as the law applicable in the matter of implementing the ICDS Scheme” it is essential to point out before the Hon’ble High Court that: (i) Firstly, that it has been consistent stand of government through affidavits filed in connected PIL before this Hon’ble Court that raw ration and semi processed fortified ration are NOT same. The fortified ration meets out the requirement of the nutritional value/norms, once it is processed by virtue of addition of micro and macro nutrients. In 43 districts of State of Uttar Praesh, Recipe based Take Home Ration is given which is mandate of the Rules of 2022 read in conjunction with National Food Security Act, 2013 and in rest 32 districts of the State, semi-processed fortified ration is being supplied which is not a dry ration as provided through fair price shop in public distribution system. The fortified ration meets the requirement of nutritional norms and is vetted by National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad (NIN); (ii) And secondly that, the beneficiaries aren’t being deprived of the nutrient norms by providing semi processed fortified ration other than THR. The fortified ration meets the requirement of nutritional norms and is vetted by National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad (NIN); (ii) And secondly that, the beneficiaries aren’t being deprived of the nutrient norms by providing semi processed fortified ration other than THR. To ensure the raw rations provided to ICDS beneficiaries through NAFED align with applicable regulations, fortification has been implemented for wheat dalia, edible oil, and rice along with alignment to NFSA , 2013 norms. The ration combinations, formulated jointly by the World Food Programme (WFP) and UNICEF, have been rigorously developed to meet specified protetin and caloric norms has received approval from the National Institute of Nutrition (NIN); (iii) That as for the manner of procurement i.e., procuring the ration from NAFED it is pertinent to mention that the issue of ‘procurement’ was discussed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal NO. 2635 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP © No.30405/2024] titled “State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Pratyush Rawat & Ors.” wherein the State/Department challenged the order dated 11.11.2024 of the Hon’ble High Court in WPIL 21609 of 2021 (connected with PIL No. 960 of 2024] (iv) That all the essential points regarding the validity of procuring semi processed fortified ration from NAFED as an interim measure were raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court while granting leave in the present matter and setting aside all other interim directions passed in PIL NO. 21609 of 2024 held as follows: “We make it clear that the appellants shall be entitled to implement the subject Scheme for supply of food items maintaining the requisite quality, to be used by lactating mothers and young children, till final disposal of the Public Interest Litigation.” h. That with respect to the 3 rd issue framed for consideration, i.e., “As to whether the accountability of SHGs for implementing the Scheme in absence of they being a juristic person, can be fixed upon the group collectively or severally and the procedure in this behalf?”, it is essential to point out the following regarding the aspect of a Legal Entity of the AoP/SHG Micro Enterprises and the manner their functioning is overseen as per Government of India letter dated 13.01.2021 (paragraph 2) which relates to the streamlining guidelines and the Gazette of India dated 12.09.2022 (Rule 2022, Part II, Section 3(i), paragraph 4)which say: (i) Supply chain process in the State must be made transparent for functionaries to ensure uninterrupted supply to the last mile, which are compliant with FSSAI registration licensing process for entities involved in manufacture storage and distribution of food to ensure food safety and hygiene. (ii) Entity has been defined as the person, association of person (AoP), firm, company or cooperative society but by whatsoever name called or referred to. Therefore not just entities but functionaries which are compliant with FSSAI can also be a part of the Supply Chain as per Rules, 2022. (iii) The AoP/SHG Micro Enterprises has it own bylaws, signed a notarize agreement, has PAN and GST registration including Udhayam registration under MSME and FSSAI License. (iv) The CLF from where the concerned AoP has emerged, are mandated to be registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. (v) To the support and provide technical guidance to the AoP, a Nodal Block Mission Manager (BMM) is appointed at the block level and a Nodal District Mission Manager (DMM) is appointed at the district level. (vi) Financial assistance made to Self Help Groups (SHGs) as Revolving Funds (RF) and Community Investment Funds (CIF) under the National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM), now known as Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana - National Rural Livelihoods Mission (DAY--NRLM), are provided under the overall policy and administrative guidelines issued by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. These funds are part of the broader financial inclusion and livelihood promotion strategy. These funds are part of the broader financial inclusion and livelihood promotion strategy. UPSRLM currently operates 204 THR units across 43 districts, reaching 1.08 crore beneficiaries under 288 ICDS projects as of September 2024 which has been revised thereafter to streamline the production. (vii) These units are managed by trained women’s micro- enterprises, ensuring compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Good Hygiene Practices (GHP). All THR recipes strictly adhere to the National Food Security Act ( NFSA ) 2013 norms and are fortified with 12 micro-nutrients, vetted by NIN, Hyderabad. (viii) To oversee the full potential functioning of THR plants at the district level, an Executive Committee has been constituted, chaired by the Chief Development Officer (CDO), Its members include the District Coordinator (National Rural Livelihood Mission - NRLM), District Program Officer (DPO), Deputy Regional Medical Officer (Dy.RMO), Sub-Divisional Officer of the Electricity Department, and District Mission Manager (DMM). (ix) This committee is primarily responsible for resolving issues faced by THR microenterprises, conducting regular monitoring, quality checks, evaluating and endorsing bills, payment of VGF, examine the income and expenditure of THR units, and ensuring uninterrupted raw material availability for two shifts of 8 hours each daily. (x) Similarly, at the block level, a committee has been formed under the Chairmanship of the Block Development Officer (BDO), with members including the Assistant Development Officer (ADO), Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Junior Engineer of the Electricity Department, Block Mission Manager (BMM), and the President and Treasurer of the Association of Persons (AoP). Both Committees are mandated to meet regularly and review the receipt and expenses of the THR plant fortnightly, payment of VGF, conduct plant visits for monitoring and quality checks, and ensure optimal plant efficiency. i. The Food Security Act 2013 has provisions for constituting a State Food Commission that will give advice to the State Government, their agencies, autonomous bodies as well as non-government organizations involved in delivery of relevant services for the effective implementation of food and nutrition related schemes, to enable individuals to fully access their entitlements specified in this Act. This clearly reflects that these non-government organizations and SHGs are entitled for providing nutritional services whether it be supply or distribution. j. The data presented by the Petitioner with respect to the hot cooked meal, fed on Poshan Tracker was of January 2025 is not factually correct. This clearly reflects that these non-government organizations and SHGs are entitled for providing nutritional services whether it be supply or distribution. j. The data presented by the Petitioner with respect to the hot cooked meal, fed on Poshan Tracker was of January 2025 is not factually correct. Hot cooked meals are given to the children (age 3 yrs-6 yrs) under SNP Scheme of ICDS who come to Anganwadi centers for pre-school education. The district administration decided to close the Anganwadi centers from mid-December, 2024 to mid-January 2025 due to the extreme cold. This was the main reason as to why the data on Pohan Tracker for those specific days represents temporary data and cannot be the basis of evaluate the proper functioning of the Hot cooked meal Scheme. k. The data validation is being carried out on Poshan Tracker during SAMBHA Abhiyaan (State Innovation) from July 2025 to September 2025 and before 1 st April 2025, it was not mandated by the Government of India to feed the data only on the Poshan Tracker, instead AWWs used to maintain the data manually in registers. Thus, it is requested before this Hon’ble Court to take into account the data maintained on the registers by AWWs and not base their opinion/analysis solely on the data on Poshan tracker as it would fail to provide a complete picture. l. In conclusion, it is submitted that all the documents and grounds regarding the validity of the SHGs, the manner in which they are utilized, the manner of scrutiny, the functioning of the THR Units, the suitability of the Dry Ration in areas where THR is not available and all the accompanying grounds have already been discussed before the Hon’ble High Court. The aforementioned grounds/points are highlights which cover majority of the issues which the Hon’ble High Court has framed to be considered. m. That the Department/State is in process of implementing the new SNP Regime and the State is Duty Bound to properly implement the Scheme and is actively making measures for the same.” (23) The opposite party No.4-Uttar Pradesh State Rural Livelihood Mission has also filed written submissions inter alia stating that it is a proxy PIL and it is liable to be rejected outrightly for this reason alone. In the written submissions, the opposite party No.4 has placed reliance on the report dated 12.12.2024 submitted by the Defence Food Research Laboratory, Mysore which mentions that the current THR plants are operating and functioning efficiently. It has been stated that the report contains some corrective suggestions particularly regarding the storage and hygiene and all corrective measures have been taken by the opposite party No.4. It is strange that on the one hand the opposite party No.4 has joined hands with the State of U.P. in opposing the constitution of the Committee and is objecting against the report submitted by the Committee and at the same time it is relying upon the report submitted by the Committee. (24) In reply to the first question framed by this Court in the order dated 07.07.2025, the opposite party No.4 in light of the relevant guidelines, Rules and Regulations made an attempt to explain that all the 204 processing units do maintain cashbooks, ledgers, stock registers, invoice files, Chart of Accounts (CoA) files and they record all transactions. The opposite party NO.4 claims that the THR plants were envisaged in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order passed in the case of Vaishnorani Mahila Bachat Gat v. Mahila Bachat Gat v. State of Maharashtra , Civil Appeal No. 2336 of 2019 in compliance of which the SHGs have been brought forth in the form of Association of Persons (AoP) for supply of the captive demand of ICDS’s supplementary nutrition in consonance with the production capacities. It has further been submitted that the recipes of the existing THR were developed jointly by World Food Programme (WFP) and Uttar Pradesh Technical Support Unit (UPTSU) and the same have been approved by the Director, ICDS. The new recipes met the global nutrition standards and also the national nutrition norms. The recipe based THR menu includes Atta, Besan, Halwa; Atta Besan Barfi Premix; Dalia, Moong Dal Kitchdi and Energy Dense Halwa which are provided in packets of different quantities. The samples of THR are sent to an empanelled National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) accredited laboratory for conducting quality test. Total 166 Ajeevika vehicles have been engaged specially for transportation of THR packets from the plant to the AWCs and local vehicles are also engaged for this purpose. The samples of THR are sent to an empanelled National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) accredited laboratory for conducting quality test. Total 166 Ajeevika vehicles have been engaged specially for transportation of THR packets from the plant to the AWCs and local vehicles are also engaged for this purpose. The District Nutrition Committee reviews and monitors Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) and Poshan Abhiyaan. (25) It has been stated that THR units are run by the Association of Person (AoP)/SHG Micro Enterprises. Each AoP/SHG Micro Enterprise is supported by 300 SHGs of a Cluster Level Federation (CLF) coming from 03 CLFs of the block. Nearly 6 lakh SHG members are directly or indirectly involved in THR programme, out of which nearly 4000 executive members are directly involved in operation and management of THR plants and they are paid an honorarium of Rs.8,000/- per month. Each of the 300 SHGs contributed Rs.30,000/- as equity fund for the purpose of installation and operation of THR plants. The fact remains that the above nomenclature or structure of service is answerable to SRLM alone being its own creation for business sharing. (26) Regarding the second question framed by this Court, it has been stated in the written submissions of the opposite party No.4 that since supply of dry ration through NAFED is implemented and monitored by the ICDS department, this question does not concern the opposite party No.4. (27) In reply to the third question, it has been submitted that AOP/SHG Micro Enterprises have their own bye-laws under the Societies Registration Act, therefore, the AoP is a juristic person. (28) The opposite party No.4 has filed supplementary written submissions stating that the THR units have the capacity to cater approximately 70-80 lakhs beneficiaries per month, if other conditions like timely procurement of raw materials, timely allotment and lifting of wheat from FCI, uninterrupted electric supply and no machinery breakdown etc. exist. (29) It is relevant to mention that in the written submissions filed initially, it was claimed that the 204 THR units cater to 1.08 crore beneficiaries. It has been submitted that the 20 women working at THR plant are trained for minor repair of the machinery and for major repair annual maintenance contract (AMC) has been entered into with the vendors having expertise in the field. It has been submitted that the 20 women working at THR plant are trained for minor repair of the machinery and for major repair annual maintenance contract (AMC) has been entered into with the vendors having expertise in the field. All the 204 THR units/SHG micro enterprises are registered as MSME and they are registered with GST and they have their PAN, FSSAI licences. (30) Strangely, the supplementary written submissions of the opposite party No.4 allege that while Shri K.M. Natraj, Additional Solicitor General of India was arguing on behalf of the State of U.P. on 29.07.2025 and Shri Pankaj Khare, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who was assisting Shri K. M. Natraj had gone outside the Court for few minutes, this Court made a query regarding absence of assisting Counsel to pass on the reference of some text relied upon, Shri Natraj expressed his inability to assist by muting the link. We heard other counsel in the meantime who advanced their arguments and concluded the same. Later on Shri Pankaj Khare came to the Court and requested the Court to complete his arguments but the Court did not permit for the same leaving it open to submit the written text, if any. The judgment was reserved. (31) Shri Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of India who has represented the State of U.P. in this case had advanced submissions extensively on 17.07.2025, 23.07.2025 and 28.07.2025. The Court heard the submissions of Shri K.M. Natraj on 29.07.2025 for about an hour required to finish the submissions. Suffice it to say that no other counsel except Shri Natraj has complained of any hurry, therefore, we do not find it desirable to comment on the assistance of learned Senior Counsel whose arguments have contributed to appreciate the issues even deeper. The alleged attributes of hurry have been levelled baselessly to derail the proceedings off the track that too at the finish of time slot granted to the counsel. The written submissions submitted by the State of U.P. have been taken note of. The alleged attributes of hurry have been levelled baselessly to derail the proceedings off the track that too at the finish of time slot granted to the counsel. The written submissions submitted by the State of U.P. have been taken note of. (32) Sri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner taking a clue from the arguments put-forth by the counsel for Union of India, State of U.P. and on behalf of U.P. State Rural Livelihood Mission, has argued that the provisions of Food Security Act and the rules framed thereunder in the year 2022 formulated a complete mechanism according to which the ICDS scheme is bound to be carried out. (33) It was further argued that the State of U.P. having entered into the MoU with the SRLM, was not within its rights to create such a discretionary mechanism for implementation of the scheme, that too, when the safeguards for quantity and quality checks have remained inadequate and deficient at all levels. (34) Learned counsel for the petitioners has thus argued that the objects of the scheme have remained unfulfilled, as a consequence whereof, the State of U.P. ranks amongst the top most States in malnutrition of children and lactating mothers. (35) This Court, for its assistance, had solicited the assistance of Dr. L.P. Mishra to put-forth his submissions keeping in view the precise legal position as was propounded and canvassed before us. Although an application for impleadment of some enterpreneur was made by him who was not a party in any of the two petitions so it was deemed proper to allow him argue orally as intervenor on the questions framed. Dr. Mishra has valuably assisted the Court and the legal position put-forth by him may be put on record as under. (36) Dr. L.P. Mishra first and foremost referred to the structure of ICDS Scheme as pointed out in paragraph 22 of the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by this Court which has attained finality. Paras 22 to 24 for ready reference are reiterated below: (37) Keeping the aforesaid operational structure of the scheme in mind, learned counsel has explained the chart available on the portal, which depicts the strength of beneficiaries and the services available at the Anganbadi Centers in the State of Uttar Pradesh are alarmingly deficient. Paras 22 to 24 for ready reference are reiterated below: (37) Keeping the aforesaid operational structure of the scheme in mind, learned counsel has explained the chart available on the portal, which depicts the strength of beneficiaries and the services available at the Anganbadi Centers in the State of Uttar Pradesh are alarmingly deficient. Thus, the structural design of the scheme with the object of serving the beneficiaries of sizeable number on being projected in clear terms as existing on date deserved to be viewed in the background of legal position as has transcended since last many decades. (38) Although numerous prayers have been made in the writ petition, but since the petition has been filed in public interest and upon hearing, it transpired that the interest of pregnant women, lactating mothers, children from the age group 6 months to 6 years and adolescent girls is involved in the present case, the Court had framed the aforesaid questions so as to ascertain the interest of the aforesaid persons forming a large section of the Society, the majority of whom are not capable of taking steps for ensuring fulfillment of their nutritional needs. (39) Much has been said about the credentials of the petitioner. As this Court has entertained the petition keeping in view the interests of the pregnant women, lactating mothers, children from the age group 6 months to 6 years and adolescent girls and not the interest of the petitioner and this Court has not even gone into the prayers made in the writ petition, rather, it has framed certain questions, what the Court is looking at is the interest of the aforesaid section of the society only and not the interest of the petitioner and in these circumstances, the credentials of the petitioners lose significance. (40) While exercising the extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction in public interest, this Court is not bound by the pleadings contained in the P.I.L. or the prayers made therein. The Court is merely trying to secure the interest of the aforesaid section of the society as per the provisions of the relevant Statutes, Rules, Regulations and policies of the Central Government and State Government. This Court has solicited the assistance from all the opposite parties and had repetitively requested the learned Counsel representing the opposite parties that they should not treat the petition as an adversarial litigation. This Court has solicited the assistance from all the opposite parties and had repetitively requested the learned Counsel representing the opposite parties that they should not treat the petition as an adversarial litigation. (41) So far as the submission that in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, the High Court should refrain from interfering in policy matters, suffice it to say that neither any challenge has been laid to any policy in the aforesaid two PILs nor has the Court raised any question against the policy of the State. We are merely examining the deficiencies in implementation of the policy and the resultant deprivation of its benefits to the eligible beneficiaries. (42) The Parliament has enacted the National Food Security Act, 2013 (Act No. 20 of 2013) on 10 th September, 2013 to provide for food and nutritional security in human life cycle approach, by ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. (43) Section 2 (1) of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Act’) provides that “anganwadi” means a child care and development center set up under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme of the Central Government to render services covered under section 4, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 5 and section 6. (44) Section 2 (6) provides that ‘food security’ means the supply of the entitled quantity of food-grains and meal specified under Chapter II; (45) Section 2 (9) defines ‘meal’ which means hot cooked or pre-cooked and heated before its service meal or take home ration, as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (46) Sections 4 to 7 of the Act which are relevant for consideration of the present read as under:- “4. (46) Sections 4 to 7 of the Act which are relevant for consideration of the present read as under:- “4. Nutritional support to pregnant women and lactating mothers – Subject to such schemes as may be framed by the Central Government, every pregnant woman and lactating mother shall be entitled to— (a) meal, free of charge, during pregnancy and six months after the child birth, through the local anganwadi, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II; and (b) maternity benefit of not less than rupees six thousand, in such instalments as may be prescribed by the Central Government: Provided that all pregnant women and lactating mothers in regular employment with the Central Government or State Governments or Public Sector Undertakings or those who are in receipt of similar benefits under any law for the time being in force shall not be entitled to benefits specified in clause (b). 5. Nutritional support to children – (1) Subject to the provisions contained in clause (b), every child up to the age of fourteen years shall have the following entitlements for his nutritional needs, namely:— (a) in the case of children in the age group of six months to six years, age appropriate meal, free of charge, through the local anganwadi so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II: Provided that for children below the age of six months, exclusive breast feeding shall be promoted; (b) in the case of children, up to class VIII or within the age group of six to fourteen years, whichever is applicable, one mid-day meal, free of charge, everyday, except on school holidays, in all schools run by local bodies, Government and Government aided schools, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II. (2) Every school, referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (1), and anganwadi shall have facilities for cooking meals, drinking water and sanitation: Provided that in urban areas facilities of centralised kitchens for cooking meals may be used, wherever required, as per the guidelines issued by the Central Government. 6. Prevention and management of child malnutrition – The State Government shall, through the local anganwadi, identify and provide meals, free of charge, to children who suffer from malnutrition, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II. 7. 6. Prevention and management of child malnutrition – The State Government shall, through the local anganwadi, identify and provide meals, free of charge, to children who suffer from malnutrition, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II. 7. Implementation of Schemes for realisation of entitlements -- The State Governments shall implement schemes covering entitlements under sections 4, 5 and section 6 in accordance with the guidelines, including cost sharing, between the Central Government and the State Governments in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” (47) Chapter V of the Act deals with reforms in targeted Public Distribution System and it consists of only Section 12 which provides as follows:- “ 12. Reforms in targeted Public Distribution System – (1) The Central and State Governments shall endeavour to progressively undertake necessary reforms in the Targeted Public Distribution System in consonance with the role envisaged for them in this Act. (2) The reforms shall, inter alia, include— (a) doorstep delivery of foodgrains to the Targeted Public Distribution System outlets; (b) application of information and communication technology tools including end-to-end computerisation in order to ensure transparent recording of transactions at all levels, and to prevent diversion; (c) leveraging ''aadhaar'' for unique identification, with biometric information of entitled beneficiaries for proper targeting of benefits under this Act; (d) full transparency of records; (e) preference to public institutions or public bodies such as Panchayats, selfhelp groups, co-operatives, in licensing of fair price shops and management of fair price shops by women or their collectives; (f) diversification of commodities distributed under the Public Distribution System over a period of time; (g) support to local public distribution models and grains banks; (h) introducing schemes, such as, cash transfer, food coupons, or other schemes, to the targeted beneficiaries in order to ensure their foodgrain entitlements specified in Chapter II, in such area and manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” (48) Chapter IX of the Act deals with obligations of State Government for food security and it contains provision for implementation and monitoring of schemes for ensuring food security. (49) Schedule II referred to in sections 4(a), 5(1) and 6 is as follows:- “SCHEDULE II [See sections 4(a), 5(1) and 6] NUTRITIONAL STANDARDS Nutritional standards: The nutritional standards for children in the age group of 6 months to 3 years, age group of 3 to 6 years and pregnant women and lactating mothers required to be met by providing “Take Home Rations” or nutritious hot cooked meal in accordance with the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme and nutritional standards for children in lower and upper primary classes under the Mid Day Meal Scheme are as follows: Sl. No. Category Types of meal2 Calories (Keal) Protein (g) 1 2 3 4 5 1 Children (6 months to 3 years) Take Home Ration 500 12-15 2 Children (3 to 6 years) Morning Snack and Hot Cooked Meal 500 12-15 3 Children (6 months to 6 years) who are malnourished Take Home Ration 800 20-25 4 Lower primary classes Hot Cooked Meal 450 12 5 Upper primary classes Hot Cooked Meal 700 20 6 Pregnant women and Lactating mothers Take Home Ration 600 18-20 (50) Thus it is clear that children aged about 3 to 6 years and children studying in lower primary and upper primary classes should not be provided take home ration and they should be provided with morning snack and hot cooked meal. (51) Prior to enactment of the aforesaid Statute, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was seized with the subject matter in Writ Petition(Civil) No. 196 of 2021 titled People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India & others and other connected matters, but on 10.02.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order stating that in view of the passage of the National Food Security Act, 2013, nothing further survives in the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition was disposed of. (52) The Ministry of Women and Child Development made a Supplementary Nutrition (under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme) Rules, 2015 to regulate the entitlements specified under the provisions of the Act for every pregnant woman and lactating mother till six months after child birth, and every child in the age group of six months to six years (including those suffering from malnutrition) for 300 days in a year as per the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II to the Act. Rule 5 dealt with supplementary nutrition under ICDS and it provides as under:- 5. Supplementary Nutrition under ICDS - The Supplementary Nutrition under the ICDS for different categories of beneficiaries shall be as under:- Sl. No. Categories Type of meal or food as per the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II of the Act (1) (2) (3) 1 Children (Between 6 to 36 months) Take home ration as per ICDS guidelines in conformity with the provisions of the Act. 2 Malnourished children (Between 6 to 36 months) The same type of take home ration as above with food supplement of 800 calories and 20-25 grams of protein. 3 Children (Between 3 to 6 years) Morning snacks and hot cooked meal as per ICDS norms. 4 Malnourished children (Between 3 to 6 years) Additional 300 calories of energy and 8-10 grams of protein in addition to the meal or food provided to children between 3 to 6 years. 5 Pregnant women and lactating or nursing mothers Take home ration as per ICDS guidelines in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Note:- Early initiation and exclusive breast feeding shall be promoted for children up to the age of 6 months. Adequate age-appropriate complementary feeding (cereal based) shall be ensured for children from 6 months to 12 months of age and balanced adult food shall be provided from 12 months to 24 months along with continued breast feeding. (53) Rule 8 of the Rules, 2015 provided that till the engagement of Self Help Groups, the supply of Supplementary Nutrition shall be ensured from such other sources or approved agencies in terms of the existing rules and regulations notified by the Central Government and the State Government. (54) Thereafter, the Ministry of Women and Child Development issued notification dated 20 th February, 2017 in supersession of the Supplementary Nutrition (under the ICDS) Rules, 2015. Rule 5 of the Rules, 2017 provides as follows:- “5. Supplementary Nutrition under ICDS. - The Supplementary Nutrition under the ICDS for different categories of beneficiaries shall be as under:- Sl. No. Categories Type of meal or food as per the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II of the Act (1) (2) (3) 1 Children (Between 6 to 36 months) Take home ration as per Anganwadi Services (Integrated Child Development Services) guidelines in conformity with the provisions of the Act. No. Categories Type of meal or food as per the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II of the Act (1) (2) (3) 1 Children (Between 6 to 36 months) Take home ration as per Anganwadi Services (Integrated Child Development Services) guidelines in conformity with the provisions of the Act. 2 Malnourished children (Between 6 to 36 months) The same type of take home ration as above with food supplement of 800 calories and 20-25 grams of protein. 3 Children (Between 3 to 6 years) Morning snacks and hot cooked meal as per Anganwadi Services (Integrated Child Development Services) norms. 4 Malnourished children (Between 3 to 6 years) Additional 300 calories of energy and 8-10 grams of protein in addition to the meal or food provided to children between three to six years. 5 Pregnant women and lactating or nursing mothers Take home ration as per Anganwadi Services (Integrated Child Development Services) guidelines in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Note:- Early initiation and exclusive breast feeding shall be promoted for children up to the age of six months. Adequate age-appropriate complementary feeding (cereal based) shall be ensured for children from six months to twelve months of age and balanced adult food shall be provided from twelve months to twenty-four months along with continued breast feeding. (55) The Hon’ble Supreme Court decided the case of Vaishnorani Mahila Bachat Gat (supra) by means of a judgment dated 26.02.2017 while the 2017 Rules were in vogue. In this judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that fixing of unit area as a district has effectively ousted several players from the field, it would be appropriate to form groups of the smaller area such as at panchayat or group of panchayats etc. within the District so that the real intention behind the policy is fulfilled in its real sense and supply should be decentralized as much as possible as it is not for the big players/industrialists in the field to cater to the needs of the Scheme as they have usurped in past. It is open to the State Government to make alternative arrangement and they are restrained from continuing the existing system of supply in the interregnum period. The decision as to alternative arrangement should be taken within ten days. It is open to the State Government to make alternative arrangement and they are restrained from continuing the existing system of supply in the interregnum period. The decision as to alternative arrangement should be taken within ten days. (56) It was in furtherance of the aforesaid direction that the State had issued a Government Order dated 01.10.2020 providing that the State had already taken a decision for production and distribution under the State Livelihood Mission through ladies Self-Help Groups. The work had already been commenced in 18 districts for establishment of Nutritional Supplement Units and it would take two years to develop the requisite infrastructure in the entire State. As it is necessary to maintain the Supplementary Nutrition Services during this period, it was decided that take home ration can be distributed as dry ration through Anganwadi Centres for beneficiaries of all the categories during this period. (57) Although it was stated in the aforesaid Government Order dated 01.10.2020 that the requisite establishment for production and distribution of nutritional supplement in the entire State will be developed within a period of two years, admittedly merely 20% of the requirement of nutritional supplement is being catered by the Micro Processing units established and operated by the Self- Help Groups and 80% of the requirement is being met with by supplying Take Home Ration through NAFED. (58) On 13.01.2021, the Ministry of Women & Child Development issued guidelines pressing various operational aspects of the nutrition content and delivery under the Supplementary Nutrition Programme which superseded the Supplementary Nutrition (under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme) Rules, 2017 and the Rules of 2017 were de-notified on 29.06.2021. It is specifically stated in the Office Memorandum dated 29.06.2021 that it has come to the attention of MoWCD that some States/Uts are giving Raw Ration as Take-Home Ration (THR). This is not permissible under Rules and Guidelines. While complying with the provisions of the Streamlined Guidelines, it is reiterated that the Take-Home- Ration (THR) as defined under National Food Security Act, 2013 is not to be misconstrued as ‘raw ration’. Therefore, the Office Memorandum dated 29.06.2021 issued by the Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India reiterated in unambiguous terms that giving raw ration as THR is not permissible and THR cannot be misconstrued as raw ration. Therefore, the Office Memorandum dated 29.06.2021 issued by the Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India reiterated in unambiguous terms that giving raw ration as THR is not permissible and THR cannot be misconstrued as raw ration. (59) On 12.09.021 the Ministry of Women & Child Development notified the Integrated Nutrition Support Programme - Saksham Anganwadi and Poshan (2.0) Rules, 2022. Rule 2 of the Rules, 2022 provides that these Rules shall apply to every pregnant woman and lactating mother till six months after child birth and every child in the age group of six months to six years (including those suffering from malnutrition) for three hundred days in a year, as per the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II to the National Food Security Act, 2013. (60) Rule 3(e) provides that “Take Home Ration" for the purpose of Supplementary Nutrition should be made using locally available staple cereals and millets, pulses and legumes, nuts and oilseeds, ensuring that refined sugar does not exceed permissible limits. Take Home Ration should be in the form of a processed mixture of various food ingredients (not raw ration), which when consumed by a child or Pregnant Woman and Lactating Mother meets the recommendation for calories, proteins and micro nutrients (Calcium, Zinc, Iron, Dietary Folate, Vitamin A, Vitamins B6, B12 and D) and such Ration should be tested in Food Safety and Standards Authority of India approved laboratories to ensure that the norms of macro and micro nutrients recommended or bench-marked for the different categories of Supplementary Nutrition beneficiaries are maintained. Raw Ration as Take-Home Ration is not permissible and the Take-Home-Ration as mentioned under National Food Security Act, 2013 shall not be misconstrued as 'raw ration'. (61) Rule 5 of the Rules, 2022 provides as follows:- “5. Procurement and Quality of Nutrition :- (1) The State or Union Territory must introduce process for procurement as per General Financial Rules, 2017 and Vigilance Guidelines and er norms issued from time to time by the Government of India and ensure that Take-Home Ration procured conforms to nutritional norms set by the Government of India. (2) The States or Union Territories shall ensure that the quality of Supplementary Nutrition items procured is as per the food safety norms as well as nutrient composition. (2) The States or Union Territories shall ensure that the quality of Supplementary Nutrition items procured is as per the food safety norms as well as nutrient composition. Supplementary Nutrition must conform to prescribed standards as laid down under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and regulations made thereunder to ensure consistent quality and nutritive value per serving and the periodicity of sample testing shall be once in a quarter of annual year, per project. (3) Take-Home Ration shall be tested from Food Safety and Standards Authority of India owned or registered or empanelled and National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories accredited laboratory and random testing must be conducted by Anganwadi Services functionaries after receipt of stock at the Anganwadi Centre or at the Block level. Provided that in case of Hot Cooked Meal, it should be ensured that it is prepared in proper kitchen sheds having adequate sanitation and safe drinking water so as to maintain hygienic conditions. (4) Supply chain process in the States or Union Territories must be made transparent for functionaries to ensure uninterrupted supply to the last mile, which are compliant with Food Safety and Standards Authority of India registration-licensing process for entities involved in manufacture, storage and distribution of food to ensure food safety and hygiene. (5) The States or Union Territories shall co- ordinate the activities of various departments through a State Level Steering Committee to ensure effective convergence between various schemes or programs having bearing on nutrition and review the progress made regarding Nutritional Indicators on regular basis. (6) The States or Union Territories shall mandatorily and regularly input data into the Poshan Tracker Information and Communication Technology application. (7) The States or Union Territories are required to adhere to Saksham Anganwadi and Poshan 2.0 Scheme guidelines with reference to integrating AYUSH concepts for holistic nourishment. (8) The Scheme guidelines shall address the required changes warranted from time to time and shall be coextensive with the nutrition dynamics.” (62) Thus after enforcement of the 2022 Rules made by the Government of India, it has become mandatory for the States and Union Territories to introduce transparent process for procurement as per General Financial Rules, 2017 and Vigilance Guidelines and other norms issued from time to time by the Government of India. (63) It is significant to notice that although Rule 8 of Rules, 2015 and Rule 8 of Rules, 2017 Rules contained provisions for engagement of Self-Help Groups to ensure supply and quality of supplementary nutrition, but the same is conspicuously absent in the Rules of 2022. (64) The learned counsel for the opposite parties have laid much stress upon the provisions contained in Section 12 (2)(e) of the Act which provides for giving preference to public institutions or public bodies such as Panchayats, selfhelp groups, co- operatives, in licensing of fair price shops and management of fair price shops by women or their collectives. Therefore the preference contemplated by Section 12 (2)(e) is limited to licensing and management of fair price shops and management of fair price shops and not to production and supply of THR and hot cooked meals. This provision has no application to the SNP which is regulated under the Rules, 2022. (65) On 13.01.2021, the Government of India issued a Circular to the Chief Secretaries of all States/Union Territories regarding streamlining guidelines on Quality Assurance, Roles and Responsibilities of Duty Holders, procedure for procurement, integrating AYUSH concepts and Data Management and monitoring through ‘Poshan Tracker’ for transparency, efficiency and accountability in delivery of Supplementary Nutrition’. It inter alia provided that the States and Union Territories must introduce transparent process for procurement as per General Financial Rules, 2017 and Vigilance Guidelines and ensure that THR procured conforms to technical and nutritional standards set by Ministry of Women & Child Development. (66) The State and UPSRLM have filed their counter affidavits, written submissions and supplementary submissions but they are silent about this aspect of the matter as to whether they have introduced a transparent process for procurement of nutritional supplement as per General Financial Rules, 2017 and Vigilance Guidelines and other norms issued from time to time by the Government of India. (67) In Maa Santhoshi Swa Sahayata Samuh v. Union of India and other connected matters , WPC No. 5063 of 2021, decided by a Single Bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 28.04.2022, the petitioners were women’s Self-Help Groups working under the Scheme of ready to eat food programme under the contracts with respective authorities in which the petitioners used to purchase the groceries, prepared the Take Home Ration (THR) and supplied them to the concerned and thus, implemented the ICDS Scheme. The Court held that:- “88. The interest of the petitioners has been affected because of the impugned order, which is leaving no scope for them in the matter of procurement of THR through SHGs. As it has been discussed here-in-above that the petitioners are only agencies, which were engaged for the supply of THR and other mid day meals according to ICDS scheme. The question of possible unemployment of petitioners has been raised in this case. Therefore, the private interest of the petitioners are getting affected by the impugned order. It has been held earlier while deciding the first question that PUCL order of 07.10.2004, has lost its relevance after passing the final order in the same case by the Supreme Court on 10.02.2017. It was also held that when the Vaishnorani case was decided by the Supreme Court, the Court had taken notice of the policy and rules prevailing at that time and rendered the decision. Scenario has changed after framing of new guidelines of MoWCD dated 13.01.2021 and also by the de-notification of the Rules, 2017. It has been held that the guidelines have been issued in exercise of powers under Section 38 of the Act, 2013 and therefore, the same have the statutory effect and it is on the basis of the same guidelines and also on the basis of the provisions in the Act, 2013, a cabinet decision has been taken by the State Government, on the basis of which, the impugned order has been passed. The emphasis is upon the quality of assurance according to the guidelines dated 13.01.2021 with reference to the norms of Food Security as well as nutrient composition confirming to the prescribed standard laid down under the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006. There is further provision for periodical test from FSSAI owned/registered/ impaneled /NABL accredited laboratory. It is on this basis, the respondents side has argued that the quality assurance can be there only when the manufacturing is done through mechanized process and also that the manufacture plant is equipped with facilities to ensure the norms of food safety as well as nutrient composition. It is on this basis, the respondents side has argued that the quality assurance can be there only when the manufacturing is done through mechanized process and also that the manufacture plant is equipped with facilities to ensure the norms of food safety as well as nutrient composition. rguments have been submitted from the petitioners side that the petitioners SHGs have the experience about more than 10 years, for procuring and supply of the THR since long for which the SHGs have made investment, purchased equipments, obtained training and also have obtained certification from FSSAI time to time. Therefore, they may not be ousted from ICDS scheme. The UNICEF report have been relied upon by the petitioners as well as by the respondents. The UNICEF report is complete with data and figures mentioning about the shortcomings of SHGs and also making recommendation for the improvement of the functioning of SHGs. Therefore, it can be said that the performance of SHGs so far had not been up to the mark because of which shortcomings have been reported and recommendations have been made. The apprehensions raised regarding competence of Beej Nigam are premature. 89. The question is how the interest of SHGs can be protected in such a case. The targeted beneficiaries of the ICDS scheme, the Act, 2013 and the guidelines dated 13.01.2021, which is at force at present are children between age group of 6 months to 6 years, pregnant women and lactating mothers. In the guidelines of 13.01.2021 and the Act, 2013 nowhere mentions SHGs. The Act, 2013 and guidelines of 13.1.2021 are not under challenge. It has been argued by the petitioners side that the guidelines dated 13.01.2021 and the Act, 2013 also do not mention of private contractor or a corporate industrialists. There being no statutory right of the petitioners to claim to be employed as an agent, it is the privilege of the State Government to take decision regarding the agencies to be appointed. Hence, in such circumstances, the impugned order is found to be based on the decision of the State Government, which has been taken in accordance with the Act, 2013 and under the guidelines dated 13.01.2021, which appears to be lawful in the present state of things. Hence, in such circumstances, the impugned order is found to be based on the decision of the State Government, which has been taken in accordance with the Act, 2013 and under the guidelines dated 13.01.2021, which appears to be lawful in the present state of things. The State Government has offered the petitioners SHGs to participate in the supply system of the THR, that shall be produced by the respondent - C.G. Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam through its agencies. Hence, there is nothing to say that the impugned order is either arbitrary or unreasonable. This question is answered accordingly. The power of judicial review cannot be exercised with respect to the impugned order. 90. The main allegations made by the petitioners is this that the State Government is privatising the procurement and supply in ICDS scheme. As per the submissions made and the documents presented by the respondent side, which has not been specifically challenged by the petitioners side. It is now clear that the C.G. Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam has entered into a joint venture agreement with C.G. Agro Food Corporation Limited and PBS Food Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2012. The inclusion of PBS Food Private Limited has been made through a transparent process by publication of advertisement and that PBS Food was the highest bidder and thus its bid was accepted. Thus the respondent C.G. Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam is a partner of this joint venture. C.G. Agro Food Corporation Limited and PBS Food Pvt. Ltd. have not been made a party in any of the petitions. (68) The aforesaid judgment was challenged through Writ Appeal No. 289 of 2022 and other connected mattes and the Writ Appeal was dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 06.11.2023. (69) In the case of Renuka Mata Mahila Bachat Gat v. Staet of Maharashtra and another , Civil Writ Petition No. 5942 of 2023 decided on 06.12.2023, it was contended before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that Self-Help Groups have a preferential right to participate in the distribution of Take Home Ration based on the decentralized distribution policy being a fundamental principle. Negating this contention, the Bombay High Court held as under:- “94. For effectively eradicating malnutrition, the State has to explore innovative methods and approaches, considering that malnutrition is also influenced by various factors that evolve. Negating this contention, the Bombay High Court held as under:- “94. For effectively eradicating malnutrition, the State has to explore innovative methods and approaches, considering that malnutrition is also influenced by various factors that evolve. While exercising the power of judicial review of the State action seeking to achieve the larger good and its statutory duty to improve nutrition outcomes, it must be kept in mind that the State, within the bounds of law, has the freedom to try new methods and technologies. Such experimentation will permit the State to explore alternative solutions that may lead to superior results in reducing malnutrition rates and improving public health. The focus should be on what works best in addressing the immediate needs of the target group. The mere fact that a different approach is also possible will not automatically warrant Court's intervention. Instead, it will have to be assessed whether the State's actions are reasonable, justifiable, and aimed at achieving the public good. The Petitioners have no inherent legal right to insist that the distribution of Take Home Ration must be exclusively through their channels. Having found that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned action of the State, we must acknowledge the flexibility available to it in choosing the approach that, according to it, is the most efficient and results- oriented in meeting the urgent health needs of children and mothers. Nutritional support to vulnerable populations must remain the paramount consideration in this litigation, and the role Trupti 103 Writ Petition No- 5942-2023 and Group.docx of the Self-Help Groups, such as the Petitioners, must be subservient to this overarching goal. It may be that the State in future change the methodology and may even give an emphasis to Self-Help Groups, but that decision must be left to the State as long it does not violate established norms. The central focus of the policy is to provide supplementary nutrition to children, pregnant women, and lactating mothers. This focus should not be diluted by diverting attention to other areas, such as engaging in contracts with Self-Help Groups.” (70) The aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through SLP No. 27358 of 2023 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 14.12.2023. This focus should not be diluted by diverting attention to other areas, such as engaging in contracts with Self-Help Groups.” (70) The aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through SLP No. 27358 of 2023 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 14.12.2023. (71) The allegation levelled in the written submissions of the State of U.P. that this Court is vehemently against the usage of Self- Help Groups for implementing the objectives of the Scheme is not correct. The court is neither against to any group nor for any group/individual/entity. The Court’s concern in these PILs is that the nutritional benefits meant for pregnant and lactating women and small children should reach them in accordance with the provisions contained in the National Food Security Act and the Rules in vogue i.e., Rules, 2022. (72) Section 4 of the Act clearly provides that every pregnant women and lactating mother shall be provided free meals during pregnancy and six months after the child birth through the local anganwadi so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II. Section 5 (1)(a) of the Act provides that children in the age group of 6 months to 6 years will be provided age appropriate meal through the local anganwadi so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II. Section 5 (2) of the Act provides that every school, referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) and anganwadi shall have facilities for cooking meals, drinking water and sanitation. Schedule II referred to Sections 4 and 5 of the Act provides that children between 3-6 years shall be provided with morning snack and hot cooked meal and children studying in lower and upper primary schools shall be provided with hot cooked meals. Children aged about 6 months to 3 years, children aged about 6 months to 6 years) who are malnourished and pregnant women and lactating mothers will be provided Take Home Ration. (73) Rule 3(e) of the Rules of 2022 specifically provides that raw ration as Take Home Ration is not permissible and Take Home Ration as mentioned under the Act shall not be misconstrued as Raw Ration. The guidelines issued by the Government of India on 13.01.2021 also provide that giving Raw Ration as Take Home Ration is not permissible. (73) Rule 3(e) of the Rules of 2022 specifically provides that raw ration as Take Home Ration is not permissible and Take Home Ration as mentioned under the Act shall not be misconstrued as Raw Ration. The guidelines issued by the Government of India on 13.01.2021 also provide that giving Raw Ration as Take Home Ration is not permissible. Although it has been contended that raw ration being provided under the Scheme is not in fact ‘raw ration’ and it is fortified ration which is compliant with the norms laid down by the World Health Organizations, the fact remains that even fortified ration is raw ration and it is not THR as defined under the Rules. (74) The ICDS Scheme was introduced on 02.10.1975 with a noble and pious objective of ensuring integrated development i.e., all- round development of children. It is indeed unfortunate that even after completion of 50 years since launching the Scheme we are yet to achieve the objective of the Scheme in its true sense. (75) The apprehension repetitively and vehemently expressed by the learned counsel for the respondents that this Court should not interfere in the policies of the State is unfounded. The Court repetitively expressed its concern that the Court is not interfering in the policy of the State. We are concerned about the non-implementation of the policy and the failure to achieve the true objectives of the policy of the State. As per the information available on the Poshan Tracker Portal of the Government for the month of June, 2025, 75 district of the State of U.P. contain 1,89,373 Anganwadi Centers in which 1,79,810 Anganwadi workers are working to cater to the needs of 2,22,14,147 beneficiaries. Out of 1,89,373 Anganwadi centers, merely 1,52,723 remain functional for atleast 15 days of the month. Amongst those 1,08,044 remained functional for atleast 21 days in a month and merely 39,295 Anganwadi centres open for at least 25 days in a month. It is significant to recall that the Scheme requires to provide supplementary nutrition to the targeted section of the Society for at least 300 days per year which comes to 25 days a month and merely 20.75% Anganwadi centres are open 300 days a year. It is significant to recall that the Scheme requires to provide supplementary nutrition to the targeted section of the Society for at least 300 days per year which comes to 25 days a month and merely 20.75% Anganwadi centres are open 300 days a year. (76) The State has contended that the data presented by the petitioners with respect to Hot Cooked Meal for the month of June, 2025 is factually incorrect in view of the fact that the Anganwadi Centers were closed due to extreme cold weather from December, 2024 to Mid-January, 2025 and for this reason, the data on Poshan Tracker for those specified dates represent temporary data. In this regard it is relevant to note that the information available on Poshan Tracker for June, 2025 reveals that there are 2,42,43,505 total beneficiaries of Supplementary Nutrition Programme, out of whom, 1,96,804 have opted out and there are 2,40,46,701 are eligible beneficiaries. 0.00% of the beneficiaries are being provided hot cooked meals as per the information available on Poshan Tracker. 99% of the beneficiaries are provided THR. When Schedule II appended to the Act categorically provides for providing hot cooked meals to children aged about 3-6 years, total failure to provide hot cooked meal to the eligible beneficiaries cannot be appreciated. (77) The contention of the State that the data fed for the month of January, 2025 does not depict the correct position cannot justify the data fed in the month of June, 2025 which also shows supply of Hot Cooked meal to be 0%. The State has fed that some Anganwadi Centers maintain data manually in the registers and the same is not fed on Poshan Tracker. When the State itself has launched an on-line tracker for providing information regarding implementation of supply of Supplementary Nutrition under ICDS Scheme, there is no reason that the correct data is not fed on Poshan Tracker. The State must take corrective measures to provide the correct information available on Poshan Tracker. (78) A news-item was published on 28.07.2025 in the Hindi Daily Newspaper Dainik Jagaran that it has come to light from an analysis of the several documents placed in the Parliament that more than 50% children nominated in Anganwadi centres, in 13 States and Union Territories including 34 districts of the State of U.P., are suffering from stunting. (78) A news-item was published on 28.07.2025 in the Hindi Daily Newspaper Dainik Jagaran that it has come to light from an analysis of the several documents placed in the Parliament that more than 50% children nominated in Anganwadi centres, in 13 States and Union Territories including 34 districts of the State of U.P., are suffering from stunting. Stunting is the result of long term malnutrition of children as per the information available on Poshan Tracker for the month of June, 2025. (79) This Court is constrained to put on record that the vehement of position to the Court’s concern about hot cooked meal and THR being provided to the eligible beneficiaries can also not be appreciated by the Court. (80) In view of the foregoing discussion, we dispose of both the PILs by issuing the following directions:- - The State shall ensure complete compliance with the statutory mandate contained in Sections 4 and 5 and Schedule II appended to the National Food Security Act, 2013 in a time-bound manner; - The State shall ensure procurement of supplies of THR and hot cooked meal strictly as per the provisions contained in Rules, 2022 as per the procurement procedure under General Financial Rules, 2017 and Vigilance Guidelines and other norms issued from time to time by the Government of India. - The supply of dry ration in place of THR and hot cooked meal is not permissible either under the Act or the Rules and supply of dry ration in place of hot cooked meal and THR should be stopped. - It was stated in the Government Order dated 01.10.2020 that establishment of requisite infrastructure for production of supplementary nutrition through women Self-Help Groups would take two years, but the State has failed to achieve this target even after expiry of five years. In case the State really wishes to empower women Self-Help Groups it should make an earnest endeavour in this direction and ensure that Self- Help Groups are empowered to make production and supply of THR and hot cooked meal in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules and in accordance with the General Financial Rules, 2017 and Vigilance Guidelines and other norms issued from time to time by the Government of India. - Giving preference to Self-Help Groups and empowering the women is a welcome approach but the empowerment should be a real empowerment with the participation of Gram Panchayats and the Self-Help Groups should not be treated as suffering from such handicaps as would justify violation of statutory mandates and provisions contained in the relevant Rules and Regulations in their favour. - The State must ensure upholding the correct information on the portal of Poshan Tracker and there should not be any discrepancy in the information available on the portal and the information kept in the registers maintained at the Anganwadi Centers manually. - Lastly, this Court expresses its earnest hope and desire that the authorities of the state should take the aforesaid steps and all/any other requisite steps so as to ensure that the object of ICDS Scheme which is in vogue for the last 50 years and the objectives of the National Food Security Act. 2013 are achieved in its true spirit and the children of the State do not suffer any more for want of proper nutrition. (81) The Order passed by this Court on 20.02.2025 as affirmed by the Apex Court shall form part of this judgment for necessary guidance. (82) Before parting, we take note of the fact that the report submitted to this Court was opposed by the State of U.P., simply by questioning the credentials of the Committee Members that too at the stage of hearing but the SRLM has relied upon the findings recorded in the report. Going into such objections would have distracted us from the main issues, therefore, we leave it open to the Central Government to take- up the matter for necessary verification of the suggestions, data and details collected by 3-Member Committee Report through some reliable agency, as may be deemed proper, so that, the ground realities come to light for taking corrective action,if any. The defaulting authorities responsible for implementing the Scheme may also be visited with action, if so warranted. This exercise is directed to be undertaken at the earliest for which a copy of the report submitted to the Court shall be forwarded to the Ministry of Women & Child Development forthwith, preferably within a period of ten days from today.