The Supreme Court’s observations on the public distribution system (PDS) which call for exclusion of people living above poverty line (APL); fixing monthly ration on per head rather than per household basis; and using unique identification (UID) cards for targeting PDS supplies have implications that go beyond the PDS. The court has virtually set new parameters even for the proposed food security law since that is also likely to be implemented through the existing PDS. Besides, it can potentially boost the UID programme by making possession of these biometric cards mandatory for the beneficiaries of a mass-based programme like PDS. While the apex court may have some good ideas, it must be pointed out that mandating such policies is not the responsibility of the judiciary in a democracy. Judicial intervention in this case is based on the report of the Justice D P Wadhwa committee on the PDS, which had found huge corruption and pilferages in the system all over the country, and is aimed largely at cleaning up this mess. While offering administrative solutions on questions of equity and justice is not the business of the judiciary, it is worth examining the court’s ideas.
The use of biometric identification, for instance, can help eliminate bogus ration cards, which presently number nearly 20 million, and ensure the inclusion of the genuine poor like migrant labourers and construction workers. Similarly, fixing the monthly foodgrain entitlement on the basis of number of family members seems a relatively more just and realistic way of ensuring food security at individual level. But the decree on the exclusion of the APL households would be difficult for the government to accept and implement. For, it militates against the demand for universalisation of the PDS made by some key constituents of the ruling United Progressive Alliance as well as some members of the National Advisory Council (NAC). Many state governments, too, are disinclined to deny PDS access to the non-poor. They will find handy support from the food security activists who are already pressing for the supply of more essential items through the PDS and broadening of the concept of food security to incorporate in it nutritional security and some other basic necessities, such as drinking water, housing, health cover, education, employment and the like. Working out a consensus on this issue would, therefore, be an uphill task for the government.
Though the Supreme Court has left it to the state to decide the quantum of foodgrain to be supplied to the beneficiaries, this too is a contentious issue. The initial draft of the food security Bill had mooted supply of 25 kg rice or wheat per family, which was 10 kg lower than the present entitlement of 35 kg a month for each below poverty line (BPL) household. The government had to immediately retract its move in view of hostile reaction. There is dispute also over the pricing of foodgrains as the suggested price of Rs 3 per kg for both rice and wheat will make wheat costlier for BPL families which are currently getting it at Rs 2 a kg. All these are crucial issues which need careful consideration by the government and which cannot be simply mandated by the court.