The Delhi High Court on Friday questioned why the Delhi government did not chose to administer the ration plan through an existing network of fair pricing stores in order to prevent controversy. During the resumed hearing of a petition filed by the Delhi Sarkari Ration Dealers Sangh against the scheme, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the government, claimed that having 1,500-2,000 fair price shops was pointless because 69 lakhs out of 72 lakh people chose home delivery of rations. When the court queried Singhvi about the number, he said that customers were requested to send an SMS to opt out of the planned scheme.
Read also: Delhi High Court asks DU to create guidelines for online certificates
The division bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh questioned why the government had not provided an opt-in option as it was bringing something new. “The stratum with which we are dealing are mostly illiterate, semi-literate, and those who don’t care to read what SMS has arrived. Singhvi stated that Delhi has a high level of cellphone savvy, and that “common sense” dictates that no one will deny ration delivery at home. He further claimed that no one among the scheme’s beneficiaries has filed a lawsuit against it.
The administration further stated that the National Food Security Act (NFSA) does not exclude delivery of entitlements to doorsteps in any way, and that 70 fair pricing stores will continue to operate at the circle level. According to Singhvi, the national government cannot determine that figure because the state government is responsible for execution.
People have a negative perception of fair pricing stores, according to the court, since there used to be a lack of control and oversight over the kind of operations, they were participating in. The court, on the other hand, questioned how people who would be brought in by the government under the new rationing programme would be any different. “The government, on the other hand, claims that the new scheme’s goal is to benefit people rather than to ensure the fair pricing stores’ long-term profitability. It stated that the low-cost stores were simply a medium.
Read also: Right time to implement Uniform Civil Code in the country: Delhi High Court
The Centre had claimed on November 22 that fair pricing stores are critical to the NFSA’s implementation. Aishwarya Bhati, the Additional Solicitor General, contended that a state is necessary to guarantee that the law is followed to the letter. Bhati stated that the state was allowed to grant advantages in excess of those provided by the NFSA, but that the state “cannot offset the benefits of the NFSA.” The appeal challenged tenders released for the home delivery of ration plan, which aims to develop an alternative method for ration distribution under the PDS scheme through private dealers at people’s doorsteps.
