Read Time: 06 minutes

Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice SA Bobde, hears plea challenging cancellation of over 4 crore ration cards for not having a valid AADHAAR card (in tribal areas specially). Notice was issued to Centre returnable 4 weeks.

“CJI: The matter is too serious, we do not expect you to treat it as an Adversarial matter.”

Senior Advocate Mr. Colin Gonsalves appeared for the Petitioner. Senior Advocate and ASG, Mr. Aman Lekhi represented the Centre.

Petitioners contend that cancellation of ration cards have resulted in unprecedented deaths due to starvation. The Bench initially directed to approach the High Court. However, accepted to hear the matter at length after 2-3 weeks.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that there is a specific mechanism to address the dispute under Food Security Act. Further it was clarified that other documents can be made available for procuring benefits under social welfare schemes, as the one in question; “If AADHAAR is not available alternate documents can be submitted.”

The Bench recalled its early findings in the Puttaswamy judgment, to note that, Right to Food cannot be denied for the want of AADHAAR.

Primary contentions of the Petitioners

1. Insistence on AADHAAR and biometric authentification had led to the cancellation of nearly 4 crores ration cards in the country according to the Union of India. The Union of India casually gives an explanation that these cancelled cards were bogus. The real reason is that the technological system based on Iris identification, thumb prints, possession of AADHAAR, functioning of the internet in rural and remote areas etc. led to large scale cancellation of ration cards without notice to the family concerned.

2. This petition documents the death of Santhoshi Kumari age 11 years, who died after the family’s ration card was cancelled because it was not linked to Aadhar. She died on 28.09.17 after which this Petition was filed by her mother and sister. This Petition also has details of many other similar cases (page 161, 247 Vol. 2). As usual government officials come up with excuses like illness, diarrhoea and malaria in fact anything but lack of food. This cruel exercise deprived millions of Indians living below the poverty line of food and led to starvation deaths in Jharkhand, UP, Odisha, Karnataka, MP, Maharashtra, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and other States (Vol. 2; 247 onwards).

3. The two Supreme Court decisions in Swaraj Abhiyan (I) (2016 7 SCC 498) and Swaraj Abhiyan II (2018 12 SCC 170) laid down the law as under:

• Swaraj Abhiyan I (2016 7 SCC 498)

1. The Food Security Act, 2013 has not been implemented.
2. The excuse of financial constraints is not acceptable.
3. The midday meal ought to be continued for school children even when the schools are closed.
4. District Grievances Redressal Officers are to be appointed within one month (i.e. 2016) and State Food Commissions within 2 months.

• Swaraj Abhiyan II (2018 12 SCC 170)

1. Giving State Consumer Forums additional designations as State Food Commissions is not legal.
2. Appointing District Grievance Redressal Officers by giving additional designations to existing officers is not correct.
3. Social audits have to be done.
4. Rules are required to be framed.
5. Vigilance Committees must be set up