Supreme Court Prods Centre On Economic Growth Claims Amid Rising Poverty, Food Security Concerns

The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised concerns over claims of high economic growth and per capita income, questioning how certain states could boast such progress while approximately 70% of their population remained below the poverty line.

The court also expressed doubts about whether government schemes distributing subsidised food grains genuinely reached those in need, reported The Hindu.

Photo Credit: PTI

"There are States which utilise or project the development card, saying our per capita income is high, we have progressed so well, but we find that 70% of their population are declared below poverty line (BPL)... How can these two factors go together? There is an inherent contradiction if 70% people are BPL and still you claim a high per capita income," remarked Justice Surya Kant, who headed the Bench.

The court questioned whether the subsidised ration system, intended to provide food security to the poor, was being used by governments merely as a tool for political popularity.

The hearing concerned petitions seeking ration cards for migrant workers to guarantee food security.

The Supreme Court has issued numerous directives since the COVID-19 pandemic, instructing authorities to implement welfare measures, including distributing ration cards to migrant workers registered on the e-Shram portal.

Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Cheryl D'Souza, representing activists Anjali Bhardwaj, Harsh Mander, and Jagdeep Chhokar, attributed this contradiction to the widening economic disparity.

"The level of inequality has gone up so much that a few people are worth lakhs of crores while a vast majority survive on ₹30 and ₹40 a day," Bhushan stated.

Justice Kant further questioned whether political motives influenced the issuance of ration cards and the identification of beneficiaries for food grain distribution.

"Unfortunately, the Executive functions at different levels. By the time ration reaches the poor, so many things would have happened. Poor families continue to remain poor," he observed.

While acknowledging concerns regarding corruption and inefficiencies in the Public Distribution System, the court emphasised that these issues should not deter its execution. "The only thing to do is to ensure that ration reaches the poor," Justice Kant asserted.

He underscored that ensuring the poor have access to at least two meals a day is fundamental to their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"I have not closed my contact with my roots... That is why I keep enquiring into how the ration system works," he explained, adding that ensuring subsidised food provisions for the poor was a matter of grave concern.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, stated that the Union government was legally obliged under the National Food Security Act to distribute food grains. She highlighted that the Act covers 81.35% of the population, with additional provisions for 11 crore individuals under the Anganwadi scheme and a further 22 crore beneficiaries.

Bhushan pointed to the surge in unemployment following the pandemic.

"After COVID, a lot of migrant labourers could not find work. They are all in need of food security. Ration cards need to be distributed to them by the States. Once this exercise is done by the States, the Centre has to release ration supplies to the poor. Otherwise, it would be a violation of Article 21 and even amount to discrimination... Besides, Census has also not been done," he submitted.

In an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court strongly criticised delays in implementing its April 2023 order to issue ration cards to approximately eight crore migrant workers registered on the e-Shram portal but not covered under the National Food Security Act.

The court was informed that 28.6 crore individuals were registered on the portal, of whom 20.63 crore were included in ration card data.

Bhushan argued that over 10 crore workers might still be excluded from food security benefits, as the statistics were based on the 2011 Census, whereas the population had since grown significantly. The court reiterated the responsibility of a welfare state to ensure every migrant worker is included in the ration card scheme without delay.