The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court (SC) that while it continues to provide food grains to the needy under the Food Security Act, NGOs and activists cannot attempt to govern the country through public interest litigations (PILs). The remarks came during a hearing on petitions seeking the continuation of free rations for migrant laborers, initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued against activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan’s claim that the government had unlawfully excluded around 2-3 crore poor people from its free ration scheme despite catering to 80 crore beneficiaries.
Policy Debate in Court
A bench led by Justices Surya Kant and Manmohan suggested that the Centre consider re-evaluating the financial status of current beneficiaries to identify those who may no longer require free rations, allowing the inclusion of those left out. The court noted that states often issue ration cards indiscriminately, leaving the Centre responsible for food grain provisions.
Justice Kant remarked, “If states were tasked with providing free ration, many would cite financial constraints and withdraw. We should focus on generating more employment.”
Centre’s Response and Accusations
The SG criticized Bhushan, accusing him of attempting to dictate government policies through PILs. Mehta stated, “During the pandemic, thousands contributed to aid the poor, but some armchair activists, like Bhushan, drafted PILs from their air-conditioned homes.” He challenged activists and NGOs to file affidavits detailing their contributions during the crisis.
In response, Bhushan alleged personal bias from Mehta, referencing previous cases involving contentious email evidence. The SG countered by reiterating the SC’s disapproval of the use of such evidence in court.
Next Steps
To address concerns over the financial burden on the Centre and the states, the bench posed the question of whether states issuing ration cards should bear the cost of free rations. The matter was adjourned for further hearing on January 8.
This case highlights tensions between governance and judicial interventions via PILs, particularly in matters of public policy and welfare.
