Contracts for take-home ration: HC upholds state’s decision to stop giving preference to women’s Self-Help Groups

The Bombay High Court has upheld the Maharashtra government's decision to stop giving preference to women's Self Help Groups (SHG) and Mahila Mandals in awarding contracts for supplying fortified take-home food packets at anganwadis under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme. The court dismissed petitions filed by women's organizations challenging the shift in government policy and stated that the primary intent of the tender was to address malnutrition.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) recently upheld the state government’s decision to stop giving preference to women’s Self Help Groups (SHG) and Mahila Mandals in awarding contracts for supplying fortified take-home food packets at anganwadis under the government’s Integrated Child Development Services Scheme for providing nutrition to children between 6 and 36 months of age and pregnant and lactating mothers.

HT Image

“The petitioners are eligible to bid in the tender but do not have vested rights, we are not inclined to hold up the tender process further. Due to this litigation, the new methodology by which the state seeks to improve nutritional delivery has been delayed, ultimately affecting the real beneficiaries of the tender: the children, pregnant women, and lactating mothers. This cannot continue,” said the division bench comprising justice Nitin Jamdar and justice Arif Doctor while dismissing a bunch of petitions filed by around 35 women’s organisations from across the state.

The women’s groups had challenged the shift in government policy which reflected from the conditions in a tender issued by the Maharashtra government in April this year, inviting bids for the supply of micronutrient-fortified energy-dense food as supplementary nutrition food, the Take Home Ration, through over 1.10 lakh anganwadi centres across the state. They claimed that the tender conditions effectively excluded their participation in the bidding process.

The petitioner organisations claimed that they had a preferential right to supply the take-home packets and argued that the central policy, which emphasises decentralisation and consistent involvement of SHGs, supported this claim and went on to contend that the apex court had recognised this right.

They further contended that the qualifying criteria, requiring the bidders to have annual turnover of at least 15% of the state’s annual expenditure for the smallest division from the fortified food business has effectively kept the women’s groups away from the bidding process, as in 2021-2022, Take Home Ration (dry ration) distribution was made at Anganwadi level (gram panchayat) and therefore most of the women’s groups have smaller turnovers and cannot meet this requirement.

“This effectively gives undue advantage to private contractors, thus violating the very essence of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution,” they claimed.

However, according to the state, the primary intent of the tender was to address the problem of malnutrition. Since there is no statutory provision that confers preferential rights on the SHGs, the tender cannot be amended to vest that right, the government claimed. Further, judicial interference in matters of policy such as this must be limited, the state claimed.

The court, after detailed scrutiny, held the challenges were unfounded and without merit. “The petitioners do not inherently possess the right to be part of the distribution process of the take-home ration, and their sole entitlement is consideration as bidders in the process,” the bench said. Further, the court found no arbitrariness in the tender process. As SHGs were unable to meet the large requirements for wheat and rice required by the government, the state, in the interest of eradicating malnutrition, has the right to explore innovative methods, the court added.

“Nutritional support to vulnerable populations must remain the paramount consideration in this litigation, and the role of the self-help groups, such as the petitioners, must be subservient to this overarching goal,” the court pointed out while dismissing the writ petitions.