The Bombay High Court recently rejected a plea regarding the One Nation One Ration Card scheme, highlighting inconsistencies in income thresholds between the Economically Weaker Section quota and the National Food Security Act. The matter has been referred to the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need for reform in food security policies for migrant laborers.
New Delhi: The Bombay High Court recently declined to entertain a plea regarding the implementation of the One Nation One Ration Card (ONORC) scheme. The petition, filed by the Movement for Peace and Justice for Welfare (MPJ) through Advocate Hamza Lakdawala, brought attention to glaring discrepancies in the income thresholds set under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota versus those outlined in the National Food Security Act (NFSA) of 2013.
The plea sought to address the plight of migrant laborers and ensure food distribution across state borders, especially within Maharashtra. However, the Court cited concerns over jurisdiction and referred the matter to the Supreme Court for further deliberation.
Background of the Case
The ONORC scheme aims to provide food security to migrant workers by allowing them to access their rations from anywhere in the country, regardless of the state they reside in. The petitioner urged the Maharashtra government and the Centre to comply with a 2020 Supreme Court order, which directed authorities to reassess the number of eligible individuals under the NFSA in both rural and urban sectors. The ultimate goal of the plea was to secure food distribution for those most affected by migration and economic hardship—primarily low-income laborers.
At the core of the petition was the disparity between income thresholds under various welfare schemes. While the EWS quota defines a family with an annual income of Rs 8 lakh as economically weak, individuals earning far less than that do not qualify for benefits under the NFSA. This contradiction raises significant concerns about the equity and fairness of food distribution policies, particularly for the poorest segments of the population.
Key Concerns Raised in the Petition
1. Inconsistencies in Income Caps
Under the NFSA, rural households with an annual income of up to Rs 44,000 and urban households with incomes up to Rs 59,000 qualify as “priority households” eligible for food security benefits. However, under the EWS quota, families with incomes as high as Rs 8 lakh are considered economically weak, revealing a glaring disparity.
For example, an unskilled construction laborer in Maharashtra, who earns approximately Rs 10,159 per month or Rs 1,21,908 per year, does not qualify for NFSA benefits. Despite being among the most financially vulnerable workers, this individual exceeds the income ceiling set by the NFSA, highlighting the urgent need to re-evaluate the income caps in the context of rising food inflation and wage stagnation.
2. Inflation and Wage Stagnation
Over the last decade, India has experienced an average food price inflation rate of 5.62%, while annual wage increases in urban areas have hovered around 6.36%. As the cost of living rises, fewer people qualify for benefits under the NFSA’s static income limits. The petition emphasized the need for dynamic income ceilings, taking into account the cost of living differences between regions like Mumbai and Nashik. Despite both being urban areas, the cost of living in Mumbai far exceeds that of Nashik, creating a disparity in who qualifies for benefits under the current system.
Bombay High Court’s Response
During the hearing, Advocate Hamza Lakdawala urged the court to reconsider the eligibility criteria for food security benefits in Maharashtra, pointing out that the income limits have remained unchanged since 2019, despite significant economic shifts. The bench, led by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar, questioned the High Court’s jurisdiction over the matter and suggested that the appropriate course of action would be to file a contempt petition in the Supreme Court, which had previously ruled on the issue.
The bench emphasized that matters related to the ONORC scheme and the reassessment of population figures under the NFSA should be handled by the Supreme Court. Advocate Lakdawala indicated that he would seek further instructions from MPJ before proceeding, with the next hearing scheduled for October 23.
Implications for the One Nation One Ration Card Scheme
The One Nation One Ration Card scheme is a critical component of India’s food security network, particularly for migrant laborers who often struggle to access rations when they move across state borders. However, its effective implementation is hampered by inconsistent income thresholds, which prevent many deserving individuals from benefiting. The Bombay High Court’s dismissal of the plea underscores the need for a comprehensive reassessment of the NFSA’s income limits and a more integrated approach to welfare schemes like the EWS quota and ONORC.
The Path Forward
The Bombay High Court’s refusal to hear the plea highlights a larger systemic issue: the income ceilings under the NFSA are outdated and fail to account for the rising cost of living and inflation in different regions of India. As food price inflation continues to outpace wage growth, fewer families will qualify for food security benefits, leaving vulnerable populations even more at risk.
The issue now rests with the Supreme Court, which may need to take a closer look at the discrepancies between different welfare schemes and the income limits that define eligibility. The Maharashtra government and the Centre must work together to ensure that food distribution is both equitable and accessible, particularly for migrant workers who often fall through the cracks of the existing welfare system.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s decision to defer the case to the Supreme Court places the spotlight on the discrepancies between the EWS quota and the National Food Security Act’s income thresholds. The case raises important questions about the efficacy of India’s food security policies and the need for a more dynamic and region-specific approach to welfare eligibility. As the nation awaits the Supreme Court’s verdict, it becomes increasingly clear that reform is necessary to ensure food security for all, particularly in an era of economic uncertainty and rising costs of living.
By addressing these inconsistencies, India can move closer to achieving its goal of One Nation One Ration Card, ensuring that every citizen has access to the food they need, regardless of where they reside.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE