Discussions around Indian constitutional identity often focus upon the Constitution’s “basic structure”, as articulated by the judgment of the Indian Supreme Court by Kesavananda Bharati. In this essay, I attempt to interrogate – and expand – that discussion. Following upon the work of Professor Gary Jacobsohn, I argue that identity, as articulated through the basic structure, is best understood as dynamic and contested, rather than concrete and unchanging. I also argue that the basic structure does not tell the complete story of Indian constitutional identity. That story needs us to understand the Indian Constitution through the lens of power, and how the Constitution organises power relations. A study of constitutional identity through the lens of power reveals – broadly – a “centralising drift” that is present both in the constitutional text and in judgments interpreting the text. While the “centralising drift” might be a dominant feature of Indian constitutional identity at the present moment, it is also important to remember that, as in its more substantive avatar, this version of constitutional identity, too, is contested, revisable, and always open to transformation.

This chapter critically evaluates the impact of the Indian Supreme Court's interim orders in the Right to Food case, a Writ Petition seeking better implementation of the Midday Meal Program (the largest school nutritional program in the world). We cite significant and varied empirical and social science evidence demonstrating that the Program expanded significantly – from a quantitative as well as a qualitative standpoint – in the years immediately following the Court's orders. The harder question is whether the expansion in the Program was "caused" by the Court's intervention, or was largely the consequence of changed political circumstances. We argue that while the supportive political environment was undoubtedly a significant factor, the evidence available seems to indicate that the Court played an important role too. These orders helped in improving the scheme in certain specific respects, in bringing sustained media attention to the issue, in entrenching the Program against subsequent shifts in political priorities, and in providing a platform for the broader social movement to coalesce around. The experience suggests that there is room for "qualified hope" as to the ability of courts to help realize socio-economic rights, albeit in certain limited situations and in partnership with other actors.

This chapter critically evaluates the impact of the Indian Supreme Court's interim orders in the Right to Food case, a Writ Petition seeking better implementation of the Midday Meal Program (the largest school nutritional program in the world). We cite significant and varied empirical and social science evidence demonstrating that the Program expanded significantly – from a quantitative as well as a qualitative standpoint – in the years immediately following the Court's orders. The harder question is whether the expansion in the Program was "caused" by the Court's intervention, or was largely the consequence of changed political circumstances. We argue that while the supportive political environment was undoubtedly a significant factor, the evidence available seems to indicate that the Court played an important role too. These orders helped in improving the scheme in certain specific respects, in bringing sustained media attention to the issue, in entrenching the Program against subsequent shifts in political priorities, and in providing a platform for the broader social movement to coalesce around. The experience suggests that there is room for "qualified hope" as to the ability of courts to help realize socio-economic rights, albeit in certain limited situations and in partnership with other actors.