Context :Supreme Court’s Observations
- The Supreme Court (SC) questioned how some States claim high per capita income while having up to 70% of their population Below Poverty Line (BPL).
- This contradiction raises doubts about the actual distribution of economic progress and wealth.
- The SC questioned whether subsidized ration schemes are genuine welfare measures or merely political popularity tactics.
Relevance : GS 2(Governance ,Social Justice)
Petitioners’ Arguments
- Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Cheryl D’Souza highlighted growing economic inequality as a major issue.
- A small percentage of the population holds immense wealth, while a vast majority struggle on ₹30-₹40 per day.
- They emphasized the need for an inclusive and equitable Public Distribution System (PDS).
Concerns Over Public Distribution System (PDS)
- Justice Surya Kant noted that political considerations might influence ration card distribution, affecting genuine beneficiaries.
- Corruption and mismanagement at various levels delay or disrupt food supply to the poor.
- Despite these flaws, the SC asserted that PDS should not be discouraged, as it plays a vital role in food security.
Centre’s Stand on Food Security
- Additional Solicitor-General Aishwarya Bhati reaffirmed the Centre’s commitment under the National Food Security Act (NFSA).
- Current Coverage:
- NFSA covers 81.35% of the population.
- 11 crore people are additionally covered under the Anganwadi scheme.
- Another 22 crore people receive food security benefits through other programs.
Key Takeaways
- Economic growth claims vs. poverty statistics highlight a gap in development benefits.
- Ration distribution efficiency needs scrutiny to ensure food reaches the deserving poor.
- Inequality concerns must be addressed to ensure wealth distribution aligns with per capita income growth.
- Strengthening and depoliticizing PDS is crucial for effective food security in India.
