How Will Doorstep Ration Delivery Scheme Prevent Corruption In Public Distribution System? High Court Quizzes Delhi Govt; Judgment Reserved

The Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment in the plea filed by Delhi Sarkari Ration Dealers Sangh, opposing the State Government's scheme for door step delivery of ration.

A Division Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh today quizzed the Delhi Government as to how the proposed scheme is better at preventing corruption in distribution of food grains, when compared to the existing scheme involving fair price shops (FPS).

As Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi government, claimed that doorstep delivery scheme is aimed at preventing the leakages in the incumbent system, the Bench remarked,

"You are brandishing the whole community of FPS by same brush. They're all corrupt? As per the LG, you're only replacing one set of people with another. So how will you ensure these new people are not corrupt? Are these people from across the planet?"

The Bench clarified that it is only trying to ascertain the reasoning behind the proposed scheme and that its queries may not have a bearing on the legality of the scheme.

It continued inquiring the reasons as to why the proposed safeguards such as geo positioning, bio-metric verification and iris scanning cannot be introduced to the existing system.

Singhvi then submitted that the Delhi government does not claim that its scheme will ensure 100% sanitization. "There will be some leakage but, I am entitled to change the system to an extent where this leakage is minimized. My rectification will make it significantly better. In any case, I am entitled to change the policy even if there will be leakage in it. There is no prohibition in the National Food Security Act (NFS Act)," he said.

At this juncture, Advocate Asmita Singh informed the Bench that the safeguard of verification was introduced at FPS, however, the same was misused and appropriate legal action has been initiated in that regard.

Responding to this, Justice Sanghi said

"So law will take its course. Whosoever is found to be indulging in any irregularity, can be proceeded against...this could happen with your new bidders also. On what basis are you claiming minimized corruption? They are also human beings only, of Indian origin, sharing same gene pool..."

The Bench also heard Advocate Visheshwar Shrivastava, who claimed that Delhi government cannot be said to be "state government" for the purposes of NFS Act, inasmuch as Section 2(22) defines State, in relation to a Union territory, as its Administrator, in this case the LG.

He added that in any case, the Delhi government is bound by the guidelines issued by the Central government, in terms of Section 3(3) of NFS Act.

Shrivastava further pointed out that "Targeted Public Distribution System" under the Act means the system for distribution of essential commodities to the ration card holders "through fair price shops". Thus, he submitted that Delhi government cannot insist on doorstep delivery of ration.

On the issue of leakages in the present system, he contended that there are a lot of checks and balances in the NFS Act and in case a person is found indulging in unlawful activities, his license may be cancelled. Thus, there is no perpetuity per se, he submitted.

Background