SUPREME COURT’S CONCERN OVER FOOD SECURITY: GOVERNANCE / POLITY
NEWS: Claims of development and high per capita income contradict high BPL population: Supreme Court
WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?
The Supreme Court questioned the contradiction between high per capita income claims and widespread poverty while addressing issues in food security and ration card distribution for migrant workers. It emphasized that access to food is a fundamental right under Article 21, urging the government to ensure efficient distribution and inclusivity.
Supreme Court’s Concern Over Food Security and Ration Card Distribution
• Contradiction in Per Capita Income and Poverty:
• The Supreme Court raised concerns about the contradiction between states claiming high per capita income while 70% of the population remains Below Poverty Line (BPL). This contradiction highlights the disparity between economic growth and the real living conditions of the poor, suggesting that the claimed economic growth may not be equitably benefiting the entire population.
• The case at hand involved petitions seeking ration cards for migrant workers to ensure food security. The court questioned how states could claim high per capita income while poverty and food insecurity persist at such high levels, especially among vulnerable populations like migrant workers.
• Concerns Over Subsidized Food Distribution:
• The Supreme Court questioned whether the subsidized food grains provided by the government were actually reaching the intended poor populations. While the government claims to distribute food through various welfare schemes, there are concerns about the inefficiency and corruption in the system that hinder effective distribution.
• Justice Surya Kant pointed out that governments often use development claims as a tool for political mileage, but the reality on the ground shows that poverty remains high, and food security is still out of reach for many of the country’s poorest citizens.
• Rising Inequality:
• Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Cheryl D’Souza, representing various activists and organizations, highlighted the growing inequality in India, where wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small group of individuals.
• They pointed out that while a tiny fraction of the population controls immense wealth, worth lakhs of crores, the majority of the population struggles to survive on a meager income of ₹30-40 per day. This growing disparity between the rich and the poor exacerbates the challenges faced by lower-income groups, further intensifying issues like food insecurity and unequal access to resources.
• Political Influence in Ration Card Distribution:
• The Supreme Court expressed concerns over whether the distribution of ration cards was influenced by political considerations. The court questioned whether the allocation of ration cards was sometimes manipulated to serve political interests, leaving out deserving individuals.
• Justice Kant remarked that executive inefficiency and corruption in the system often prevent ration benefits from reaching the actual poor. The court emphasized that, for a welfare state, such inefficiencies should be eradicated to ensure that food security reaches all individuals who are in need, particularly those who are migrant workers and the poor.
• Fundamental Right to Food Security:
• The Supreme Court asserted that access to food is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The court emphasized that ensuring food security is a vital part of upholding this right.
• The court highlighted that the poor must be entitled to at least two square meals a day, regardless of their social status, employment situation, or location. This underscores the government’s obligation to provide basic sustenance to all citizens, particularly those who are vulnerable and living below the poverty line.
• Government’s Obligation Under National Food Security Act (NFSA):
• Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati provided information about the National Food Security Act (NFSA), which covers 35% of the population in India, ensuring their entitlement to subsidized food grains.
• Additionally, 11 crore people are covered under the Anganwadi scheme, which provides supplementary nutrition for children, pregnant women, and lactating mothers. Furthermore, another 22 crore people are covered through various other welfare schemes.
• Despite these provisions, there remain concerns about the actual implementation and inclusivity of these programs, especially in terms of migrant workers and people who are not captured in official data.
• Impact of COVID-19 on Employment and Food Security:
• Prashant Bhushan argued that the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated unemployment in the country, leading to an increased reliance on food security programs. The economic downturn caused by the pandemic left millions of people without work, further deepening poverty and increasing dependence on government assistance.
• Bhushan emphasized the urgent need for states to issue ration cards to migrant workers. This would enable the Centre to release ration supplies efficiently to those who are outside their home states, particularly during emergencies or lockdowns when migrant workers are left without work and food.
• Delay in Implementation of Previous Orders:
• The Supreme Court had previously ordered, in April 2023, that ration cards be issued to 8 crore migrant workers who were registered on the e-Shram portal. This was part of an effort to ensure that all eligible migrant workers had access to food security, particularly during times of crisis.
• However, the Centre reported that 6 crore workers were registered on the e-Shram portal, and 63 crore individuals were linked to ration card data. This raised concerns about the accuracy of the data, as some migrant workers might still be excluded due to outdated Census 2011 data, which may not capture the current population dynamics.
• Welfare State’s Responsibility:
• The court reiterated the responsibility of a welfare state to ensure that all eligible individuals, including migrant workers, have access to essential services like food security. The welfare state must ensure that no one is excluded from vital welfare measures, especially those facing economic hardships.
• The court stressed the urgency of implementing food security measures for all migrant workers and vulnerable populations, to guarantee their right to food and prevent further discrimination or delays in ration distribution. The government must act quickly to address these issues and implement its obligations under the National Food Security Act and other welfare initiatives.
• Conclusion:
• The Supreme Court highlighted the inefficiency and corruption in food distribution systems and called for immediate action to ensure that food security measures are implemented effectively for all eligible individuals, especially migrant workers and the poor.
• The court emphasized that food security is a fundamental right and that delays in the distribution of food can amount to a violation of Article 21 (Right to Life), further exacerbating inequality and discrimination in the country. The government must act swiftly to ensure that ration cards and food security benefits reach every individual in need.
Source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/claims-of-development-and-high-per-capita-income-contradict-high-bpl-population-supreme-court/article69348727.ece