You wouldn't think that Article 21 of the Indian constitution would be too controversial. It says "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." This is frequently called the 'right to life' article. The important thing about it is that the supreme court of India has interpreted it in quite expansive ways.
Looking at the court's individual decisions-- such as the ruling that all slum and pavement dwellers have the right to live somewhere and city governments are responsible for upholding this right; or the ruling that all destitute families are entitled to 35 kgs of grain every month-- well, I generally support these policies. A minimal standard of shelter and food are essential for being able to make a living.
But considering the big picture of the rulings that have derived from Article 21, I can't decide if I agree with the vision of the supreme court. Its not that I think the rulings are too redistributive or too specific to be constitutionally enshrined. Rather, maybe food and shelter are too important to be placed primarily under the responsiblity of the Indian government.
The reach of government is, of course, one of the basic problems of politics. Most people would agree that government should be responsible for guaranteeing rights like freedom of speech and conscience. Only a government has a system of courts and police forces that can enforce these rights. Food and shelter, maybe, are more basic than civil liberities like free speech. More important for survival, definitely. But also not something that only government institutions are equipped to provide. So it doesn't seem right that the supreme court of India entrusts the country's local governments-- many of them rife with corruption, bureaucratic inefficiencies and discriminatory practices--with such an essential task.
This tension is also central to American politics... issues about the size of government; and our two main parties' visions of what they do and don't trust government to do. In India, though, the political debate doesn't really take those terms. I think it is more taken for granted that the government should do these tasks... the debate, rather, seems to be more about implementation.
Billions of rupees go into the nationally-organized rationing system, but the distribution of the food is entirely the responsiblity of hte states. And many of them screw it up, meaning that hte very poorest don't actually get any food. I like the humanitarian ethic of the Indian constitution and can understand the supreme court's desire to make the humanitarian values into specific policies. But underpaid corruption-prone public officials and bureaucrats shouldn't be relied on to guarantee goods that are essential for life.