'You Cannot Cancel Before Verification' : Supreme Court On Telangana Govt Cancelling 19 Lakh Ration Cards; Directs Field Verification

"We direct the State of Telangana to conduct verification of all the ration cards canceled pursuant to the directive issued by Central Govt. in 2016, We are informed there are 17 parameters taken into account before cancellation of ration cards. The authorities are directed to conduct field verification of all the cards and also deal with representation preferred by any aggrieved card holder whose card has been canceled expeditiously."

A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai also directed the Chief Secretary of the State to file an affidavit apprising the Bench about the steps taken before cancelling the ration cards.

"…we deem it proper, an affidavit shall be filed by the Chief Secretary informing this Court as to the steps taken before cancellation of the ration cards in the State of Telangana."

The bench was hearing a special leave petition filed by social activist SQ Masood challenging the Telangana High Court's refusal to entertain his PIL against the cancellation of ration cards. The High Court said that no relief need be granted as the lockdown has been lifed. The Supreme Court commented that the High Court's order was "cryptic".

Senior Advocate, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, informed the Bench that the ration cards were canceled without notice; without field verification and based on a computer algorithm. He expressed concern that the same was contrary to the notification which insisted on conducting ground verification before cancellation of ration cards.

He further submitted that the card-holders' whose ration cards were cancelled were asked to apply for fresh cards and their applications are pending for the past 2-3 years before the concerned authority.

As Justice Rao enquired about the defence taken by the State in this regard, Mr. Gonsalves responded that they have justified the cancellation on the basis of an algorithm and 17 parameters set out by them facilitating the cancellations. He submitted -

"They have an algorithm and 17 parametres like bogus cards, did not make a declaration , linkage of Aadhaar card and ration card was faulty etc."

He asserted that authorities do not have any pointed response for specific cases of cancellation -

"They don't say why a particular card was canceled."

Justice Rao asked him, "How many canceled?"

He informed the Bench that 21.94 lakh cards were cancelled. He added that all such cards were given to the respective card holders after due verification by the authority. He was perturbed that now the cards have been cancelled even without giving the card-holders an opportunity to be heard. He stated -

"It is an act of extreme cruelty. These are very poor families. Suddenly they are rendered without cards."

He pointed out that an RTI Application was filed, wherein the Central Government had stated that almost 4 crore ration cards were cancelled across several States. Telangana was one of these States. A protest was lodged by the petitioner against the cancellation on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Gonsalves highlighted that the State of Telangana responded stating that there was no requirement under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFS Act) to serve notice before cancelling ration cards.

Further, the Bench was apprised that the primary reason for cancellation was non-linkage with Aadhaar card. He argued that the State Government had made Aadhaar mandatory for availing the benefits of the Public Distribution System in violation of the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. Mr. Gonsalves contended that if the benefit accrues from a statutory provision, to avail the same Aadhaar cannot be made compulsory.

"The Puttaswamy judgment says that if it is a statutory right there is no question of insisting on Aadhaar. It is only for subsidies of the Govt."

Relevant portion of the Puttaswamy judgment is as under -

"We also make it clear that a benefit which is earned by an individual (e.g. pension by a government employee) cannot be covered under Section 7 of the Act, as it is the right of the individual to receive such benefit."

He also referred to Section 3 of the National Food Security Act 2013 which deals with the right to receive food grains at subsidised price by persons belonging to eligible households under Targeted Public Distribution System.

"3. (1) Every person belonging to priority households, identified under sub-section (1) of section 10, shall be entitled to receive five kilograms of foodgrains per person per month at subsidised prices specified in Schedule I from the State Government under the Targeted Public Distribution System:"

He submitted that the card-holders whose ration cards were cancelled were eligible and upon an intensive verification they were provided the ration card in the first place.

Another aspect the Puttaswamy judgment had acknowledged was the lack of accessibility of the internet in rural India. He argued that the Court was aware that seeding of Aadhaar with ration cards is not going to work and had asked the Government to provide alternative means to identify.

He referred to the following portion of the judgment to substantiate his argument -

" We are also conscious of the situation where the formation of fingerprints may undergo change for various reasons. It may happen in the case of a child after she grows up; it may happen in the case of an individual who gets old; it may also happen because of damage to the fingers as a result of accident or some disease etc. or because of suffering of some kind of disability for whatever reason. Even iris test can fail due to certain reasons including blindness of a person. We again emphasise that no person rightfully entitled to the benefits shall be denied the same on such grounds. It would be appropriate if a suitable provision be made in the concerned regulations for establishing an identity by alternate means, in such situations."

The Bench was informed that the State Government had insisted on Aadhaar, even when the Central Government notification prohibits insistence of Aadhaar card for availing benefits of subsidised foodgrain.

The State Government had also submitted in its counter affidavit that the fair price shop dealers are the main source of the bogus ration cards. Mr. Gonsalves explained the modus operandi of such dealers -

"Now they themselves say in the affidavit that the fair price shop dealers are the main source of bogus cards. He creates 200-300 bogus cards, draws ration and sells it in the market."

Justice Rao stated -

"This appears to be your main point. If there are 17 purposes for cancellation, the card holder should know why it was cancelled."

Advocate, Mr. Venkata Reddy appearing for the State of Telangana submitted that the cancellation was not specific to Telangana but was a pan India measure initiated pursuant to the notification of the Central Government. He further stated that 23 lakhs new cards have now been issued which would also include the concerned card-holders.

Justice Rao opined that there was no determination as to whether the new cards were issued to the cancelled card holders or new applicants. Therefore, this argument made by the State does not seem to hold water.

On the issue of bogus ration cards, Justice Gavai remarked -

"You have to separate the grain from the chaff. For the ration shop owners making bogus cards you cannot stop the benefit that accrues to the genuine card holders…You have to adopt alternative measures for verification."

Mr. Gonsalves agreed with the observation made by Justice Rao that there was no means to ascertain whether the new cards were for the concerned card-holders or new applicants. He proposed that in the cases where cards were cancelled without verification, they can be restored. In the meanwhile the verification process can continue for the said people.

"What we ask is wherever there is no verification, restore the card with liberty to carry out verification."

Justice Rao asked the State to file an affidavit -

"You file an affidavit of the Chief Secretary where you will say all persons whose card has been canceled will be given an opportunity to make representation, on the basis of which you would conduct verification."

Making representation might be a cumbersome process and would cause delay; therefore, Mr. Gonsalves suggested that the authorities already have the records of the people and they can straightaway proceed with field inspection.

Justice Rao agreed and asked the Government to carry out review of the cancellations -

"Do a review of the cancellation to show that they fall under which category of those 17 parameters."

Mr. Reddy submitted that verification was conducted at District levels.

Justice Rao opined -

"So, you are saying that you verified 21 lakh and then you cancelled. Can we believe this?"

Justice Gavai asked Mr. Reddy to show from his counter affidavit that verification was indeed conducted prior to cancellation.

"Have you mentioned in the counter that verification was carried out before cancelling. Show that."

As it appeared that field verification was yet to be conducted, Justice Rao remarked -

"After cancellation of the cards you will go and see? You cannot cancel before verifying."

Justice Gavai stated -

"It is like convicting a person then conducting a trial…The genuine card-holder should not be harassed."

On the issue of denial of opportunity to be heard, Justice Rao noted -

"How would a person know parameter under which it had been canceled. A minimum opportunity is needed to be given. Let the Chief Secretary file an affidavit that verification would be conducted. You cannot cancel en mass."

Mr. Reddy pointed out that the State Government has received no complaints from individual card-holders till date, apart from the Public Interest Litigation that is now before the Bench.

Justice Rao was of the view that when the State is dealing with people who are in dire need of ration cards, they should be more cautious while cancelling the same.

"So, do you want everyone to come here? File an affidavit. You are dealing with people who are taking ration from the Public Distribution System. It is not a luxury litigation."

[Case Title: SQ Masood v. State of Telangana And Ors. SLP (C) No. 12926 of 2021]