Food choices in India have never been mere matters of calories or taste. They are deeply tied to identity, history, caste, and community. What one eats, and with whom, has long been coded with notions of purity and impurity. . This cultural politics of food has now seeped into one of India’s most ambitious welfare schemes, the Mid-Day Meal Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘MDMS’) which can be read in multiple news sources (see ,Ìý, and ).
MDMS launched under the National Food Security Act, 2013 and provides free lunches in government schools. Its nutritional and educational contributions are undeniable. It has improved and provided many children with .Ìý. Two-thirds of Indian children attend government schools, and . Parents send their children to schools with a hope that the meal under the Thus, MDMS is not simply welfare, it has the potential to shape culture, habits, and identity during formative years. By presenting vegetarian food as the state-backed norm, the MDMS moulds young children into adopting cultural practices that may not belong to their communities. However, the scheme’s near-exclusive reliance on vegetarian meals raises serious constitutional concerns by imposing the cultural diets of communities such as Dalits and Adivasis. This violates fundamental rights to culture under Article 29, privacy under Article 21, and equality under Article 14.
, where Dalit diets which were largely meat-based were stigmatised as impure. Reliance on such diets for Dalits was due to their poverty and survival concerns. Over time, these food habits became stepped up from mere needs and acquired the status of cultural markers, even symbols of defiance and identity. For many Dalits and Adivasis, eating meat is both a necessity and a rejection of upper-caste hegemony. To exclude these diets from MDMS has implications for these communities.
This contravenes which guarantees every community the right to conserve its culture. That right includes a negative obligation on the state not to interfere. Instead, the MDMS actively weakens these cultural traditions by presenting vegetarianism as the only legitimate school diet. Similar cultural rights have also been provided by the Article 15(1)(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which have been .
It also infringes Article 21. The Supreme Court in recognised personal choice and autonomy as core to liberty. In , the Bombay High Court specifically affirmed that dietary choice is integral to personal liberty. MDMS, however, systemically displaces children’s autonomy by enabling the state to leave them with no choice but to consume the dominant diet. For children dependent on MDMS as their only meal, the scheme enables the state to make the decision of what to eat on their part.
Further, the scheme’s uniformity masks indirect discrimination. As the Court clarified in , seemingly neutral rules which disproportionately harm disadvantaged groups violate equality provisions. MDMS appears neutral by serving vegetarian food to all. Yet, it affirms vegetarian children’s culture while marginalising others, creating alienation and reinforcing historical stigma. True equality under Article 14 requires recognising different needs of differently situated groups. The state’s insistence on a single diet violates that principle.
The matter is even more urgent since it involves children. . By aggressively pushing vegetarian meals during formative years, MDMS risks reshaping cultural identity of the children from marginalised communities. highlighted the state’s heightened duty to uphold children’s rights.
Some argue that the state is not bound to provide meat or eggs since MDMS is a welfare measure. But the scheme derives its statutory force from Section 5 of the National Food Security Act, 2013, making it law under and thus subject to fundamental rights. Proponents of the scheme also argue that such a positive obligation to provide meat-based diets cannot be imposed. The Supreme Court in held that recipients of state aid cannot be made to abandon fundamental rights to seek aid and grant. By the same logic, the state cannot design MDMS in ways that compel children to forsake their cultural diets.
The government often cites . been of the view that financial paucity cannot be used to justify fundamental rights violations. Moreover, the suspicion remains of the issue being ideologically motivated due to the political environment where vegetarianism is promoted through bans and restrictions elsewhere. shows that school feeding programs can and should be culturally sensitive. There, dietary guidelines mandate that menus must consider cultural diversity, food habits of the children.
India could easily adopt a middle path. The problem is not that every child must be served meat daily, but that vegetarian food is presented as the sole state-approved norm. A more inclusive alternative would be to introduce eggs or meat weekly or at intervals. This would dilute the cultural hierarchy that vegetarianism creates without placing an unmanageable burden on the exchequer. It would also respect the food traditions of millions, allowing children to feel recognised rather than excluded.
In conclusion, the weaknesses of the MDMS need to be acknowledged and considered and actions taken to make it in consonance with India’s pluralism and protect its children’s dignity. Otherwise, this might lead to a large cohort of children becoming vegetarian in later years of their life deviating from their cultural values. This can become a big hurdle in preservation of different cultures with food being one of the core components of a culture.
Pragati Garg is a law student at Jindal Global Law School.
Lovish J Goyal is a law student at the NALSAR University of Law.