'Some States Boast Of High Per Capita Income, Yet Say Majority In Poverty' : Supreme Court Asks If Scientific Criteria Is Followed For BPL

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (March 19) orally commented that there are certain States which, despite boasting of having high per capita income, also claim benefits meant for the Below Poverty Line (BPL) section by claiming that the majority of their population is poor.

The Court wondered if there was a scientific method followed by the States to identify and classify the poor sections and shared its concerns about BPL benefits going to persons who are not deserving.

The Court was hearing the matter pertaining to the free ration cards to migrant workers and unskilled labourers found eligible under the e-Shram portal.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh was hearing this case, which has taken suo motu by the Court during the COVID pandemic to address the concerns of migrant workers and unskilled labourers.

The present issue before the Court is whether the upper ceiling under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA), which, as per Section 9 is 50 percent of the urban population and 75 percent of the rural population, can be extended based on the population estimates. It has been argued by Advocate Prashant Bhushan that since the 2021 census has not taken place, there are approximately 10 crore more people eligible for the ration card, and they should be given free and subsidised rations irrespective of the food quota. Last year, on October 4, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Amanullah passed an order stating "all such persons who are eligible (entitled for Ration Cards/ foodgrains as per the NFSA) and have been identified as such by the respective States/Union Territories, must be issued Ration Cards before 19.11.2024."

However, subsequently, an application was filed by the Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India seeking that it be allowed to comply with the directions strictly as per the ceiling limit mandated by the NFSA.

Today, when Bhushan was summarising the orders passed by the Court so far, Justice Kant orally remarked that he recently read about a State (reportedly Haryana) that is 3rd in the list of States with increased per capita income but 70% of its population is below the poverty line. He added that the Court is apprehensive of a situation where the benefits are actually not percolating to the genuine persons because they continue to be poor.

"Now that you are examining the issue, please also find out, because today, we don't want to name the State but I read a complete article..what's happening is when the question of per capita income comes, the State are boasting that my State per capita income is much above the poverty line and I am the third richest State...and what question of BPL comes, that every State claims 70% of their population as BPL. How can these things be reconciled? Our worry is, the benefits which are actually meant for the genuinely poor persons below poverty line, are those benefits percolating into the pockets and kitties of those who don't deserve it?" Justice Kant asked.

Bhushan responded that the Court may not emphasise this particular issue because, in India, around 80% of people are poor and even if the benefits are given to certain people who are ineligible, it cannot be a reason to deprive those in crores to get free rations.

He added that the situation which are Court is apprehensive of may be rare because in the e-Shram portal, persons have to register their income and other criteria only after which they become eligible for free ration. He further stated that States also have their specific criteria in examining the eligibility of the persons but by and large, the criteria is that the person must be poor.

Justice Kant responded: "This is an extremely genuine cause to ensure that poor people in the country, at least all those are provided with ration at subsidised rates. It's basically an affordable price for them to enable them to at least have two meals a day. For that purpose, please find out what is the criteria laid down by States [for eligibility of persons]...in only two elements we would like to have some kind of assistance from people also. One is that, this issuance of ration card, we have that there is no politicised consideration...is there any scientific data State wise based upon a criteria that whom they have classified as poor and who according to them is above poor...I keep asking because I have not closed my roots and that's why I try to find out the plight of the people. Sometimes you feel disappointed that there are families who continue to be poor. For them, the actually benefit is not percolating."

The Court will hear the matter next to next week.

Case Details: IN RE PROBLEMS AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERS| MA 94/2022 in SMW(C) No. 6/2020