El Niño-driven drought risks exposing India's food supply chain to systemic failure, making a legally enforceable national food security buffer reserve — beyond existing FCI norms — an urgent policy necessity.
Aaj ka motion yeh hai: 'India Must Legally Mandate a National Food Security Reserve Against Climate Shocks' — yaani kya India ko ek aisa statutory framework banana chahiye jo climate-related aapda ke waqt rashtriya khadya suraksha sunishchit kare? Yeh ek behad zaroori sawaal hai jab badhte hue climate risks aur karodo logon ki khadya nirbharta daanv par hai — toh Counsel Aarav, aap pehle apna paksh prastut karein.
My lord, main yeh kehna chahta hoon ki NFSA 2013 ki Section 44 ek dangerous loophole hai — jab bhi flood, drought, cyclone jaisi climate calamity aaye, sarkar apni delivery zimmedari se Force Majeure ke naam par hat sakti hai, aur koi claim nahi chalta. Iska seedha matlab yeh hai ki climate shock ke sabse mushkil waqt mein, jo log sabse zyada zarooratmand hain, unka haq suspended ho jaata hai — yeh acceptable nahi hai. Isliye is motion ka core demand bilkul sahi hai: ek legally mandated national food security reserve banana hoga jo precisely inhi climate shocks ke liye ready rahe, taaki Section 44 ka 'except' clause ek safety net ban jaaye, na ki ek escape route.
Ref: National Food Security Act, 2013 · Section 44
My lord, paksh ne bahut badi baat kahi — lekin woh ek fundamental sach se aankhein chura rahe hain: NFSA 2013 ka Section 44 khud yeh maanta hai ki flood, drought, cyclone jaisi climate emergencies mein Central Government ki liability suspend ho jaati hai — yeh force majeure clause seedha kehta hai ki climate shocks ke waqt existing framework hi dono haath khada kar leta hai. Toh ek nayi 'legally mandated reserve' banana — us system par, jo khud climate shocks ke saamne apni zimmedari chord deta hai — woh koi solution nahi, woh ek hollow structure par ek aur manjila banana hai. Main yeh maanti hoon ki food security ek constitutional commitment hai, lekin main yeh nahi maanti ki iska jawab ek naya rigid legal mandate hai — jab existing Act khud hi climate vulnerability ko apni exception mein likh chuka hai.
Ref: National Food Security Act, 2013 · Section 44
My Lord, vipaksh ne jo argument diya hai, main seedha us par aata hoon — NFSA Section 44 ka Force Majeure clause yahi sabit karta hai ki sarkaar khud climate shocks ko — flood, drought, cyclone — ek anticipated reality maanti hai, isliye liability se bachne ka raasta rakha; lekin yahi clause ek badi loophole ban jaata hai jab koi mandatory reserve nahi hoti, kyunki tab government keh sakti hai 'force majeure' aur karodo bhukhe nagrik bina remedy ke reh jaate hain. Isliye NFSA Section 39 ke rule-making power ka upyog karke Central Government ko legally bind karna zaroori hai ki ek climate-proof National Food Security Reserve banaaye — taaki Section 44 ka yeh escape hatch nahi, ek actual safety net bane. My Lord, Section 38 aur Section 23 milkar yeh bhi clearly mandate karte hain ki Central Government State Governments ko funds aur directions de sakti hai — toh legal mandate ka koi structural badha nahi, sirf political will chahiye.
Ref: National Food Security Act 2013 · Section 44; National Food Security Act, 2013 · Section 39; National Food Security Act, 2013 · Section 38; National Food Security Act, 2013 · Section 23
My Lord, paksh ne jo sabse bada point uthaya — ki mandate zaruri hai kyunki climate shocks unpredictable hain — usi ko main seedha palta deti hoon: NFSA 2013 ka Section 44 ek Force Majeure clause deta hai, jisme war, flood, drought, cyclone jaise events mein sarkar ki direct liability suspend ho jaati hai — iska matlab yeh hai ki law ne khud yeh maana hai ki extreme climate shocks ke waqt ek rigid statutory mandate deliver nahi kar sakta, kyunki aisi aapda mein supply chains breakdown kar jaati hain jo kisi bhi legal mandate se pare hain. Aur Section 23 ke tahat jo funds State Governments ko diye jaate hain, unka existing framework already adaptive response ka raasta deta hai — ek aur naye mandatory reserve ka layer oopar thopna sirf bureaucratic duplication hoga, actual food delivery nahi. Isliye, My Lord, mandate ka core premise hi is Act ke apne provision se contradict hota hai — force majeure relief aur adaptive funding ka mechanism pehle se maujood hai, naya rigid mandate solution nahi, burden hai.
Ref: National Food Security Act, 2013 · Section 44; National Food Security Act, 2013 · Section 23
Proposition side ka kehna hai ki NFSA 2013 ki Section 44 ka Force Majeure clause khud yeh maan leta hai ki climate shocks supply todh sakte hain — isliye ek legally mandated national reserve zaroori hai; jabki opposition ka tark hai ki Section 39 ke rule-making powers kaafi hain aur ek rigid statutory reserve operational aur fiscal drishti se impractical hoga. Main koi faisla nahi sunaungi — lekin ek balanced legal suggestion yeh deti hoon ki Central Government NFSA 2013 ki Section 39 ke tahat ek structured rule frame kare jo Section 44 ke listed climate events ke liye minimum buffer stock thresholds aur automatic release triggers define kare, taaki mandate bhi mile aur flexibility bhi bani rahe. Ab main citizens se nivedan karti hoon ki is debate ko rate karen aur apni raay dein.
Ref: National Food Security Act, 2013 · Section 44; National Food Security Act, 2013 · Section 39