Latest news with #RighttoFood
Time of India
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Wrongful detentions in name of B'deshi Rohingya: Cong MLA
Jaipur: Congress's chief whip in the state assembly, Rafeek Khan, Sunday said at a programme on the role of political parties in ensuring Right to Food that in the name of "Bangladeshi Rohingya", many people were picked up by the state govt and police "wrongfully" and "falsely". "An order came from above stating that Bangladeshi Rohingya people are wandering around everywhere. In Jaipur city, 2,000-2,500 people were picked up under the pretext of being Bangladeshi Rohingya, and they were asked for ID and passports. The labourers did not have passports. Many people did not have IDs. People from Rajasthan, specifically from Shekhawati, were picked up and detained. I managed to get around 2,000-2,500 people released from the police station. One woman was found whose land records dated back to 1960, even before Bangladesh was established. Not a single person was Bangladeshi. There are many people from West Bengal," said Khan. He also raised concerns over the state govt's intention of removing names from the list of the food security beneficiaries, based on caste or religion. CPI national secretary Annie Raja said the CPI has always supported the Right to Food law and has integrated these issues into the party's agenda.
Daily Mirror
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mirror
The UK is failing on hunger — Labour must put the right to food into law
Today's new figures from Trussell on food bank use should shake every one of us — particularly those in positions of power — out of any complacency. Almost 3 million emergency food parcels were provided by food banks to people facing hunger in the past year – equivalent to one parcel every 11 seconds. This is a 51 per cent increase compared to five years ago. Every 11 seconds, a food parcel. Every 11 seconds, a failure of government. Behind each of these parcels is a person or family facing hunger in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We are living through a national emergency where hunger is the daily reality for millions, including working families, children, and disabled people. This is not just a social crisis. It is a profound human rights failure. Food banks, once a short-term emergency response, have become embedded into the UK's social fabric. At the heart of this crisis is a fundamental failure to treat access to food as a basic right. That's why we believe the Labour movement must take bold, rights-based action to end food poverty — starting with recognising the right to food in domestic law. In March, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) issued a damning set of recommendations to the UK Government. It found that the UK is falling far short of its international human rights obligations — with food insecurity and hunger among the most urgent concerns. Crucially, the Committee called on the UK ensure that the economic, social and cultural rights — including the right to food — are given full legal effect, and to adopt a comprehensive food strategy that prioritises dignity and equity. These recommendations didn't come out of nowhere. They are grounded in evidence from communities, campaigners and legal experts who are witnessing daily, the ways in which hunger is not just widespread but systemic. That is why we are joining forces — as a Labour MP leading the Right to Food campaign in Parliament, and as a domestic human rights organisation working to embed economic, social and cultural rights in UK law — to call on the Labour Party to act decisively on poverty and hunger. The Right to Food campaign, backed by city councils, faith groups, trade unions and supporters across the country, is built on a simple truth: food is not a commodity or a reward for hard work. It is a fundamental human right. In one of the richest countries in the world, no one should be going hungry. And when they do, it reflects political choices — not individual failure. We are calling for three concrete steps: This would ensure public bodies have a duty to uphold access to adequate, nutritious and culturally appropriate food — and that individuals have recourse if their rights are denied. It would also create a vital accountability mechanism for government decisions that impact food access. A joined-up strategy must go beyond agriculture and markets. It must address the drivers of food poverty: low incomes, inadequate social security, insecure housing, and cuts to local services. Any credible plan must be shaped by the lived experience of those most affected. Labour must champion a framework that recognises rights to food, but also housing, education, health, social security, and decent work. Without this foundation, efforts to tackle poverty and inequality will remain piecemeal and vulnerable to rollback. There is a growing movement across Parliament that recognises this. MPs from across the party have raised questions on the UN CESCR's findings. In the communities we serve, the appetite for change is clear. The task now is to match that with political will. The Labour government must rise to this challenge. It was elected on the with the pledge 'to end mass dependence on emergency food parcels, which is a moral scar on our society,' so now is the time to act. That means rejecting the normalisation of hunger. It means ending the indignity of food banks. And it means recognising that access to food — like healthcare or education — is not optional. It is a fundamental human right. Labour has a chance to turn compassion into law — and it must seize it. We know this won't be easy. But it's what justice demands — and it's what our communities deserve. The UK was once a global leader in building a welfare state that protected people from the worst of hardship. We can be that country again. Let this year's food bank figures be the turning point in tackling hunger. Ian Byrne is the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby and Alex Firth is an advocacy officer at Just Fair.
Time of India
05-05-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Maternity payout covers just 20% of births, claim activists
NEW DELHI: Right to Food activists have expressed concern over barely 20% of births each year being covered by govt's maternity benefit scheme, despite the National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013, guaranteeing Rs 6,000 as legal entitlement of all pregnant women. Data given to RS in March showed that only 54 lakh beneficiaries were paid in 2024-25, much lower than almost 73 lakh in 2022-23, but an improvement over 22.5 lakh beneficiaries in 2023-24. The estimated number of births per year in India is 270 lakh. Giving maternity benefit of Rs 6,000 per child for 90% of the 270 lakh births would require an annual expenditure of over Rs 14,500 crore. However, the allocation for the maternity benefit scheme, Prime Minister's Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY), has stagnated below Rs 2,000 crore in the last few years. The entitlement has not been revised since 2013, which means in real terms it has gone down after adjusting for inflation. Even by a very conservative estimate, maternity benefits should have been raised to at least Rs 12,000, argued the Right to Food activists. In April 2017, the women and child development ministry told Supreme Court that all pregnant women would receive Rs 6,000 under Section 4 of the NFSA. But instead, the PMMVY was implemented, reducing the benefit to Rs 5,000, restricting it to the first child (or second if it's a girl), and imposing multiple conditionalities. To get Rs 3,000 (first instalment), pregnancy must be registered and one ante-natal check-up done within six months at an approved facility. For Rs 2,000 (second instalment), childbirth must be registered and the child vaccinated with the first cycle of immunisations. Eligibility is limited to disadvantaged women who must prove it with documents like ration or BPL cards. Further, women below age of 18 years and seven months are not eligible. Many documents are required, including Aadhaar card, Aadhaar-mapped bank/post office account details, mobile number, eligibility proof, Mother and Child Protection card or Reproductive and Child Health card, date of last menstrual period, date of ante-natal check-up, child's birth certificate, and child immunisation details. Due to these conditions, most women are excluded. In 2023-24, only 2.7 lakh women (about 1%) received the second instalment. In contrast, Tamil Nadu and Odisha provide Rs 18,000 and Rs 10,000 per pregnancy, with 84% and 64% birth coverage respectively.
The South African
25-04-2025
- Business
- The South African
What NEXT? Four times national budgets were overturned in court
The relationship between national budgets and constitutional courts represents a fascinating intersection of fiscal policy and constitutional law. And a new chapter was written by the DA and EFF in the Western Cape High Court today. Their interdict against 2025 VAT increases filed earlier this week was upheld. Marking yet another improbable first for South Africa under its Government of National Unity (GNU). It all started with Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana's postponed Budget Speech in February. And now it's concluded in the courts just days before VAT increases were set to go ahead on Thursday 1 May 2025. This is, as many predicted, a victory for South Africa's constitutional framework that held strong in the face of misguided fiscal policy from the ANC. Moreover, there have been several global precedents where national budgets were overturned in court. Unsurprisingly, most often these are in emerging economies, where misappropriation of budgets is rife: Perhaps one of the first overturned budgets come from the Hungarian Constitutional Court. It invalidated significant portions of 1995's austerity measures in the country, known as the 'Bokros package.' Social welfare cuts were reversed as they were deemed to violate citizens' constitutional rights to social security. One of the most notable examples occurred in Colombia, where courts declared a 'state of unconstitutional affairs.' As such, government was ordered to reallocate budgets for funding of displaced persons. Thus, establishing the principle that budgetary decisions are not immune from constitutional review. India's Supreme Court, in the landmark Right to Food case, ordered government to implement and fund specific nutrition programs. While not directly overturning budgets outright, this effectively mandated budget allocations for initiatives not planned for. Much like the successful overturning of VAT increases in 2025, these examples illustrate the courts' power to redirect fiscal priorities when constitutional rights are seen to be threatened. In most instances, the following precedents were set: Governments must typically reallocate funds within existing constraints rather than increase expenditure. Many courts focused on procedural reforms to improve budgetary processes, so it wouldn't happen again. Greater transparency, public participation and rights-impact assessments are typically the lasting legacy from overturned budgets. These precedents from other emerging nations suggest that intervention is cautious but meaningful when the allocation of public funds is deemed to undermine the best interests of the people. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
