The Calcutta High Court has held that a person’s ration benefits cannot be discontinued merely because their name has been removed from the electoral roll. The Court directed that ration supplies suspended on this ground be restored immediately and asked the West Bengal government to clarify its stand at the next hearing.
The order was passed by Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya while hearing a petition challenging the suspension of ration benefits after the deletion of names from the voter list.
No Direct Link Between Voter List and Food Security: Court
During the hearing, the Court observed that removal from the electoral roll does not automatically make a person ineligible for benefits under the Public Distribution System (PDS).
Justice Bhattacharyya noted that there is no direct legal connection between a citizen’s right to receive subsidised food under the food security framework and their inclusion in the electoral roll. The Court said the issue requires wider consideration.
Petitioner Challenged Suspension of Ration Benefits
According to the petitioner, their name was deleted from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. They alleged that after the deletion, the local ration dealer informed them that their ration benefits would also be stopped.
Claiming that the decision violated their legal right to food security, the petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court seeking restoration of ration supplies.
State Asked to Clarify Position
After hearing the matter, the High Court directed that ration benefits be restored immediately in cases where they were discontinued solely because a person’s name had been removed from the voter list.
The Bench also directed the West Bengal government to place its position on record at the next hearing.
The case raises important questions about whether revisions to electoral rolls can affect access to welfare schemes such as the Public Distribution System, which provides subsidised food grains to eligible beneficiaries under the National Food Security framework. The matter will be taken up again after the State government files its response before the Court.
