'Doorstep Ration Delivery Scheme Is In Public Interest; LG Taking Obstructive Approach': Delhi Govt Tells High Court
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday continued hearing a plea filed by Delhi Sarkari Ration Dealers Sangh, opposing the State Government's scheme for door step delivery of ration. Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi Government, made three-fold submissions: (i) the scheme is proposed in public interest, to uphold the citizens' right to food; (ii) the National Food Security Act...
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday continued hearing a plea filed by Delhi Sarkari Ration Dealers Sangh, opposing the State Government's scheme for door step delivery of ration.
Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi Government, made three-fold submissions: (i) the scheme is proposed in public interest, to uphold the citizens' right to food; (ii) the National Food Security Act does not prohibit doorstep delivery of ration; and (iii) the Delhi LG has adopted an 'obstructive approach' to stall the implementation of the scheme.
The Division Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh also heard Advocate DP Singh, appearing for the Lieutenant Governor, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati for the Central Government and Advocate Talha A. Rehman, appearing on behalf Bandhua Mukti Morcha which has filed an impleadment application in the matter.
The hearing will continue tomorrow.
Background
Delhi's Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal had stalled Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's "Ghar Ghar Ration Yojana Scheme" for doorstep delivery of ration to the poor. The Centre has claimed that fair price shop owners form an integral part of the National Food Security Act and that the proposed scheme of Delhi government mitigates the architecture of the Act.
Subsequently, the Delhi Government had clarified that fair price shops will continue to exist in its proposed scheme.
It had also stated that the scheme is a "progressive reform" for targeted delivery of food grains to the marginalized and is in line with the spirit of the National Food Security Act (NFS Act) to "ensure actual delivery or supply of the foodgrains to the entitled persons".
Arguments by Delhi Govt
Today, Dr. Singhvi argued that the petitioner, a licensee under the Act, does not have the vested right to perpetuate an existing system which is "rampant with corruption and leakage". He argued that a licensee's right to challenge a policy, which is in public interest, is limited.
Reliance was placed on Union of India & Anr. v. International Trading Company & Anr., where it was held that "overriding public interest has been accepted as an override to legitimate expectations".
Singhvi insisted that a writ court cannot ignore the larger picture for a dealer, who wants to stop a scheme which is aimed at welfare of the marginalised, for his own profitability. It was argued that even during non-Covid times, it's a 'misery' to stand in long queues in fair price shops.
He then turned to the NFS Act and argued that no provision thereunder prohibits home delivery of ration. Rather, he pointed out that welfare legislations like the NFS Act have to be interpreted in expansive, dynamic manner to keep in tune with the time and progression of technology.
Reliance was placed on the Central Vista case where Singhvi argued the Supreme Court made a teleological interpretation and upheld Central Government's plan for construction of the Central Vista project and a new Parliament in Lutyen's Delhi.
He submitted that if the Centre's argument is accepted that introduction of doorstep delivery mars the architecture of NFS Act, then by applying the same analogy the Centre's own policies like 'One Nation One Ration Card' would require the Parliament to first amend the statute.
He added that even several Judicial orders (PUCL v. Union of India, popularly known as the Right to Food case) have made "actual access" to food grains a justiciable right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the same cannot be said to be contrary to the NFS Act merely because there is no direct stipulation in the statute.
Singhvi then dubbed the approach of Delhi LG, allegedly delaying implementation of the scheme at the administrative level, as 'negative and obstructive'. He argued that distribution of ration is not within the purview of three subjects that fall under the domain of Centre, i.e. public order, police and land. Thus, the LG must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in terms of Article 239AA of the Constitution and the power to refer the issues to the Central Government must be exercised in exceptional circumstances. (See Shamsher Singh & Anr v. State Of Punjab)
Reliance was placed on GNCT of Delhi v. Union of India & Anr. (commonly known as Delhi v. LG case) where the Supreme Court had held that the LG cannot interfere in each and every decision of the Delhi Government, and that the LG is bound by the aid and advise of the council of ministers of Delhi Government, except in matters of land, police and public order.
The Bench also heard Advocate Talha A. Rahman, whose impleadment application on behalf of Bandhua Mukti Morcha is pending consideration. Referring to the case of Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union Of India, whereby directions were issued to ensure that food grains reach the end beneficiaries even during drought, the counsel submitted, "march of judicial orders have been doorstep delivery of ration".
Reliance was also placed on Jeeja Ghosh & Anr v. Union Of India and Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India to argue that standing in queues for long hours, merely for obtaining food grains, is detrimental to the right to dignity of people who may otherwise receive ration in a quiet and respectful manner through doorstep delivery.
Arguments for LG & Central Govt
Advocate DP Singh claimed that the Delhi LG had asked the state government to reconsider the scheme as it does not replace the middle man, but merely replaces them. He suggested that the government may consider 'direct beneficiary transfer' to prevent corruption by delivery agencies.
He added the the Supreme Court has, in the Delhi v. LG case, recognized the LG's power to differ from the Delhi Government and make reference to the President under Article 239AA(4) of the Constitution.
ASG Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Central Govt, reiterated that State cannot mitigate the architecture of the National Food Security Act while implementing the same. She further informed the Bench that the scheme is not feasible in a much as most of the beneficiaries are laborer's/ migrants who shall not be at home for receiving the delivery. "The scheme is tied to addresses and not beneficiaries. How will one manage in case of migration or change in address of daily wage earners who do not have permanent homes," she argued.
She further insisted that Fair Price Shops are important to ensure full accountability, transparency, social audit, surveillance and targeted delivery. These shops maintain the record of beneficiary names, who has availed the facility, of what amount, on what date, etc., which would not be feasible in case of doorstep delivery. Thus, it was contended that the scheme is not an additional benefit and it is rather tinkering with the edifice of the NFS Act.
Bhati added that the Delhi govt is free to devise its own scheme to ensure easy access to food grains, however the same has to be in conformity with the central law.
Previous Reports:
Case Title: DELHI SARKARI RATION DEALERS SANGH DELHI v. COMMISSIONER FOOD AND SUPPLIES GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.