Court refuses plea seeking One Nation One Ration Card scheme in Maharashtra

The Bombay High Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking implementation of the One Nation One Ration Card scheme (including portability), citing disparity in maximum income cap in rules for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota and the Food Security Act.
The plea sought the implementation of the scheme to distribute food to migrant labourers/citizens across state borders throughout India and especially within Maharashtra.
The plea was filed by an association called Movement for Peace and Justice for Welfare (MPJ) through Advocate Hamza Lakdawala.
The plea sought a direction for the Maharashtra government and the Centre to comply with a 2020 Supreme Court order directing them to undertake the exercise to re-determine the total number of persons to be covered under rural and urban areas of the state while implementing the Food Security Act.
The National Food Security Act (NFSA) 2013 aims to make food and nutrition affordable and accessible to the majority of the country’s population. It covers around two-thirds of India’s population, including 75 per cent of the rural population and 50 per cent of the urban population.
Hence, the petition pointed to an alleged inconsistency amongst various government welfare schemes being implemented in Maharashtra for the economically and socially backward groups that have varying income caps.
For reservations in the EWS quota, a person with an annual family income of Rs 8 lakh is considered to be economically weak. But the same person does not qualify for food security scheme benefits, states the plea, highlighting the contradiction and the disparity.
The plea also pointed out that, on average, the rate of food price inflation in India has been approximately 5.62 per cent and the average annual wage increase in urban areas in India over the last 10 years is estimated to be approximately 6.36 per cent.
This means that while the cost of food has increased, so have wages. However, the maximum income limit under the rule has remained the same. This means that each year fewer and fewer people would be eligible for food security under the “priority household” category as the income ceiling has remained stagnant, it said.
The 2019 Rules have set the limit at a maximum family annual income of Rs 44,000 in rural areas and Rs 59,000 for urban areas, a huge contrast in comparison with the maximum income limit for the EWS quota.
In contrast, an unskilled labourer working in the construction of roads and buildings in Maharashtra is entitled to a monthly minimum wage/income of 10,159, which translates to an annual income of Rs 1,21,908.
Hence, even an unskilled labourer, who is one of the poorest citizens in Maharashtra, is not entitled to receive benefits under the Food Security Act as his income exceeds both the rural and urban income limits.
The plea also highlighted that the income ceiling in the Food Security Act has to be dynamic as no two rural or urban areas are the same. For example, both Mumbai and Nashik are considered urban areas but the cost of living in the state capital is much higher compared to Nashik.
On Friday, Advocate Lakdawala submitted before the bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar that there was a need to recalculate the eligibility criteria for the maximum annual family income limit set out in the Maharashtra Food Security Rules, with respect to under identification of “priority households” for targeted public distribution of subsidised food grains Under NFSA.
Lakdawala stressed that since 2019, the criteria had not been revised.
However, the bench asked, “Are we the executing court? Why don’t you file a contempt petition in the Supreme Court?” To which, Lakdawala replied that the revising of the criteria was an issue that could be heard by the High Court itself.
The bench then disagreed with the petitioner’s counsel, saying that the other issues of implementation of the One Nation One Ration Card scheme and the undertaking of the exercise under NFSA, based on latest population figures to fulfil the Constitutional mandate of securing the right to food and nutrition of all eligible citizens in accordance with the Supreme Court orders, would have to be heard by the top court.
Advocate Lakdawala then decided to take some time to seek instructions from the association.
The next hearing in the matter has been scheduled for October 23.