The Supreme Court directed a petitioner challenging exclusion of individuals from West Bengal’s ration distribution system to approach the Calcutta High Court. The Bench observed that the issue involved a separate cause of action concerning welfare benefits and was better suited for High Court consideration.
The Supreme Court on Monday asked a petitioner challenging the exclusion of individuals from the ration distribution system in West Bengal to approach the Calcutta High Court, observing that the matter involved a separate cause of action relating to welfare benefits and was more appropriately suited for consideration by the High Court.
The plea was mentioned before a vacation Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
The petition was filed by agricultural workers’ organisation Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity, challenging government orders that allegedly link access to food security schemes with classifications made during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
ALSO READ: [Ration Distribution Scam] SC Rejects West Bengal’s Plea Against CBI Investigation
The petitioner questioned an order issued by the West Bengal Food and Supplies Department on June 4 and a notification dated May 19 issued by the Department of Women and Child Development and Social Welfare.
Background Details
The controversy arises from the alleged use of data generated during the SIR exercise for determining eligibility under welfare schemes, including the Public Distribution System (PDS) and the Annapurna Yojana.
During the electoral roll revision process, certain voters were categorised as “dead”, “shifted”, “deleted” or “absentee”. According to the petitioner, the State government’s decision to connect these categories with welfare entitlement could lead to genuine beneficiaries losing access to essential food supplies.
The petition claims that if the linkage is implemented without individual verification, between 35 lakh and 60 lakh ration cards could potentially become inactive.
The organisation argued that such a large-scale exclusion could impact vulnerable sections who depend on subsidised food grains provided through government schemes.
Challenge Before Supreme Court
The petitioner argued that the State’s action violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. According to the plea, exclusion from electoral rolls during the SIR process does not automatically establish that a person is economically ineligible or does not qualify for welfare assistance.
The petition also highlighted that the Supreme Court, while dealing with the SIR process in another matter, had clarified that electoral roll classification cannot be treated as a direct determination of a person’s economic condition or citizenship status.
The petitioner further contended that the government cannot use information collected for one statutory purpose electoral revision for an entirely different purpose involving eligibility for welfare benefits. According to the plea, using electoral data to decide whether a person should receive ration benefits amounts to an improper expansion of the purpose for which the data was originally collected.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prasanna Kumar submitted that the issue required urgent consideration because the decision could affect a large number of ration card holders.
He informed the Bench that the Supreme Court had already examined the legality of the SIR process in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India and that similar approaches were being followed in other states where electoral revision outcomes were being connected with welfare benefits. The petitioner requested the Court to intervene and examine whether such a linkage was constitutionally valid.
During the hearing, Justice BV Nagarathna questioned why the petition had been filed directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The Bench noted that the issue raised was different from the earlier challenge relating to the electoral revision process. According to the Court, the present dispute concerned whether ration cards could be cancelled or whether individuals should continue receiving benefits under welfare schemes.
Justice Nagarathna observed that the matter involved a separate legal issue and suggested that it should first be considered by the Calcutta High Court.
She asked why the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, noting that the plea raised a separate cause of action altogether, namely, whether ration cards ought to be discontinued or whether such persons should continue to remain part of the beneficiaries under the PDS.
The case raises broader concerns about the relationship between government databases, welfare schemes and individual rights.
The petitioner’s argument is that electoral status and welfare eligibility operate in different legal fields. A person’s name being affected during electoral roll revision, according to the plea, should not automatically result in denial of access to food security schemes.
The dispute also brings attention to the importance of due process before removing beneficiaries from essential welfare programmes. The petitioner has argued that any exclusion should involve proper verification and an opportunity for affected persons to present their case.
After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the plea at this stage and directed the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Calcutta High Court. The order leaves open the possibility of judicial examination of whether the State’s decision to connect SIR classifications with ration eligibility is legally sustainable.
The case continues to highlight important questions regarding constitutional protections, food security rights and the limits of using administrative data collected for one purpose to determine eligibility under another government programme.