Easy for States to get ration from Centre and distribute it for free, but burden is on taxpayers: SC

BPL card holders in queue to collect free ration from a PDS shop in East Delhi’s Vishwas Nagar on March 30, 2020.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 30, 2025) said it is “very easy” for States to get food grains from the Centre and distribute it for free among the people to gain political popularity. Ultimately, however, it is the taxpayer who has to bear the burden of the distribution of free ration to the burgeoning poor, a Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant said.

The court held that other activities, such as generating employment and building infrastructure, were as important as distribution of free ration.

The court was hearing a suo motu case on food security, especially for migrant workers. The case was originally based on petitions filed by activists Anjali Bharadwaj, Harsh Mander and Jagdeep Chhokar, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, seeking directions to the Centre and States to ensure food security, cash transfers and other welfare measures for distressed migrant workers during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Now, in 2025, are we still carrying the ‘poverty’ tag? States say we are ready to issue ration cards, free rations, provided the Centre gives it… The Centre will give, but at whose cost? The burden is on the taxpayer… Where will we get the money for infrastructure, generating employment… These are also issues to be addressed,” Justice Kant remarked.

Unchanging poverty levels

Justice Kant asked whether the nation was still, in 2025, stuck at the same level of poverty as in 2011, when the last Census was taken. Mr. Bhushan said that as the population has increased in the past decade, the numbers of poor people would have also gone up.

In an earlier hearing, the top court had said the long-term response to problems of food security was to generate employment. Mr. Bhushan had argued that the National Food Security Act (NFSA) was still driven by figures from the 2011 Census. He had pointed out that the NFSA entitled 75% of the rural population and 50% of the urban population to receive highly subsidised foodgrains under two categories of beneficiaries – the Antodaya Anna Yojana households, and the priority Households. However, this quota was based on the 2011 Census.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, for the Centre, had also strongly objected to Mr. Bhushan’s contentions, maintaining that the NFSA had 81.35 crore eligible beneficiaries.