http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil)  196 of 2001

PETITIONER: People’s Union for Civil Liberties

RESPONDENT: Union of India and Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/07/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

I.A. NOS. 34, 35, 40, 49, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL ) No. 196/2001

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Grievance of the writ petitioner in these I.As. is that a  number of Anganwadi centres  which are required to be  sanctioned by December 2008 is 14 lakhs. But the number of  centres sanctioned as on March, 2007 is 10.53 lakhs.  Therefore, about 3.47 lakhs centres need to be sanctioned. As  per the data available, the numbers of Anganwadi centres  which are operational as on 30.9.2006 is 7.81 lakhs.  Therefore, even the sanctioned centres have not become  operational and their number is 2.72 lakhs. The details of  some of the States where sanctioned Anganwadi centres have  not been operationalized to a large extent are as follows:  

                State No.of sanctioned Anganwadi* No.of sanctioned  Anganwadi centres Not operationalised*

As per UOI  As per State Govt.Affidavits

Bihar  80528 22761 19602 Jharkhand  32097 10638  7680 Madhya

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Pradesh  69238 19432 16165 Punjab  20169  5439 5439 Haryana  17192 1225 1225 West Bengal  92152 37088 37092 Uttar Pradesh  150727 33987 22087 Manipur   7639  3138  3138 Assam  37082 11635 11666

* This includes the ICDS centres sanctioned in December  2006 under Phase II expansion. None of these centres  have obviously been operationalised.

From the affidavit of the Union of India it appears that the  position is as follows: 2.      By 31.3.2005 - 7,64,709, by 30.9.2006 - 9,46,000  (approx.) and by December 2006- 1.02 lakhs centres have  been sanctioned with a total of about 10,48,000.  

3.      By order dated 13.12.2006 it was inter-alia directed as  follows: "(1) Government of India shall sanction and  operationalize a minimum of 14 lakh AWCs in  a phased and even manner starting forthwith  and ending December 2008. In doing so, the  Central Government shall identify SC and ST  hamlets/habitations for AWCs on  a priority  basis.

(2)     Government of India shall ensure that  population norms for opening of AWCs must  not be revised upward under any  circumstances. While maintaining the upper  limit of one AWC per 1000 population, the  minimum limit for opening of a new AWC is a  population of 300 may be kept in view.  Further, rural communities and slum dwellers  should be entitled to an Anganwadi on  demand" (not later than three months) from  the date of demand in cases where a  settlement has at least 40 children under six  but  no Anganwadi."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

4.      It is a matter of concern that even the sanctioned centres  (the number of which is much less than the targeted one)    have not been made operational.  

5.      Learned counsel appearing for different States have  indicated various reasons for the same. Prima facie we are not  satisfied with the reasons indicated. The need for having  functional Anganwadi centres have never been questioned and  cannot be questioned.           6.      The importance of Anganwadi centres has been  highlighted by this Court in several orders. By order dated  7.10.2004 it was noted as follows:

"\005..Now we would deal with the aspect of  sanctioned AWCs and their working. In  the Order dated 29.4.2004  it was  directed that the sanctioned AWCs shall  be made fully operational by 30th June,  2004. Further direction issued was that  the sanctioned AWCs shall supply  nutritious food/supplement to the  children, adolescent girls and to pregnant  and lactating women under the scheme  for 300 days in a year. The Report  presents a glooming picture both in  regard to the operation of the sanctioned  AWCs in some of the States like Uttar  Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand and the  position in those which are operational.  Instances have been given in the Report  where for months the supplies were not  made to the children. For example, in the  State of Jharkhand, the sanctioned AWCs  were not working from May to December,  2003. No satisfactory reply is forthcoming  from that State. Further, there are-  material discrepancies in two affidavits  filed by the said State one in September  and the one handed over in the Court  today. In the September affidavit, it was  deposed on oath that 16689 AWCs were  operational. In the affidavit filed today,  the figure of operational AWCs is stated  to be 7429. According to the Report, on  an average, 42 paisa as against the norm  of rupee one was being allocated per  beneficiary per day by the State of  Jharkhand. The position in Bihar and  Uttar Pradesh is also no better. Out of  394 sanctioned ICDS projects, only 249  were operational in the State of Bihar. As  per the affidavit dated 30 September,  2004, all the projects were being made  operational from 4 October, 2004.  Whether that has happened or not, Mr.  B.B. Singh  learned counsel appearing for  the State is unable to state for want of  instructions. Be that as it may, if all have  not been made operational since 4th  October, 2004 has already passed and  gone we direct that the same shall be  made operational in period not later than  one week from today.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

In the State of Uttar Pradesh,  though percentage of non-  functional/non-operational AWCs is more  as per the Report but according to the  State, admittedly 24 per cent are not  operational. In the affidavit, it has been  claimed that the remaining will be  operational by 30th November, 2004. We  direct the State Government to make  operational all sanctioned AWCs by 30th  November, 2004. After that, we would not  entertain any application for extension of  time.

The Report also mentions that some  of AWCs are operating from private  houses including those of grain dealers  which it is suggested is not a healthy way  of working as it is likely to increase the  chances of pilferage of the grain etc. We  are happy to note that as stated in the  affidavit of State of Uttar Pradesh, it has  made efforts to shift AWCs to primary  schools. It is a good example for other  States to follow. The Report also  mentions about the attempt to centralise  the procurements in some of the States  which has many fallouts. It has been  explained in one of the affidavits that the  procurements is at district level and not  at the State level. Further, the problem of  using contractors for procurement has  also been mentioned in the Report  suggesting that it should be done by  agencies and officers at the Government  level. These are only by way of  illustrations as to facts and figures given  in Section 1 of the Report relating to  Integrated Child Development Services.

7.      Learned counsel for the State of U.P. has pointed out that  because of elections there was some delay.  

8.      In the circumstances, we direct as follows:

       The backlog has to be cleared immediately and the  centres which have been sanctioned upto September 2006  shall be made operational and functional by 15th July, 2007 in  the case of all States except the State of U.P. where the last  date is fixed to be 31st July, 2007. Those centres which have  been sanctioned upto January 2007 shall be made functional  by 30.9.2007.

9.      It is made clear that if there is any non observance of the  time period fixed would be seriously viewed.  Affidavits shall be  filed by 20th July, 10th August and 10th October, 2007 by the  States in respect of the date lines fixed indicating the action  taken.

10.      List this matter on 20th July, 2007.