The Supreme Court on Monday raised concerns over the sustained distribution of free or subsidized rations to 81 crore individuals under the National Food Security Act of 2013, highlighting the exclusion of taxpayers from such benefits and the potential long-term dependency it creates.
During a hearing involving a suo motu case on migrant laborers’ issues, initiated during the Covid-19 pandemic to offer immediate relief, a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Manmohan questioned the Centre’s ongoing support without a focus on job creation. “For how long can freebies be given? Why don’t we work to create job opportunities, employment, and capacity building for these migrant workers?” the bench asked.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, informed the court about the extensive distribution of rations, which prompted the bench to remark on the significant number of beneficiaries, implying that mainly taxpayers were left to bear the cost.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing an NGO in the case, argued for the necessity of continuing to provide free rations to all migrant workers registered with the “e-Shram” portal, emphasizing the lack of ration cards among many workers which could otherwise facilitate their access to government provisions.
Justice Surya Kant expressed concerns over potential misuse by states in issuing ration cards, noting, “The moment we direct states to provide free ration to all migrant workers, not a single one will be seen here. They will run away. To appease people, states may issue ration cards because they very well know that the liability is on the Centre to provide free ration.”
The hearing also addressed discrepancies in the data used to assess the needs of migrant workers, with Bhushan highlighting the reliance on outdated 2011 Census data and suggesting that a recent census would show an increase in migrant worker numbers.
A heated exchange occurred between Mehta and Bhushan, with the Solicitor General criticizing the NGO for not being actively involved on the ground during the pandemic and accusing Bhushan of damaging the government’s image through released emails.
Justice Kant urged both parties to focus on the case’s substance, recognizing the need for a detailed hearing to address the complex issues surrounding migrant workers’ welfare and the distribution of freebies. The case has been scheduled for further hearing on January 8.
