The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined an urgent request to entertain a writ petition challenging the alleged linkage between welfare benefits and the exclusion of individuals from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in West Bengal.
The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi advised the petitioners to approach the Calcutta High Court, observing that the grievance raised a distinct cause of action requiring examination by the jurisdictional High Court.
The matter was mentioned by Advocate S Prasanna on behalf of Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity, an independent trade union representing agricultural labourers, marginal farmers and sharecroppers, challenging an order issued by the West Bengal Food and Supplies Department on June 4, 2026, as well as the notification issued by the Department of Women and Child Development and Social Welfare on May 19, 2026.
According to the petitioner, both measures linked eligibility under the Public Distribution System (PDS) and the Annapurna Yojana to classifications generated during the SIR exercise, including categories such as deceased, shifted, deleted and absentee electors.
The plea contended that the impugned measures effectively directed authorities to identify, scrutinise and remove beneficiaries from welfare schemes on the basis of electoral classifications, thereby introducing considerations unrelated to the objectives of the National Food Security Act, 2013, and other welfare legislation. It was argued that electoral status or exclusion from voter lists cannot be treated as a valid determinant of entitlement to food security and social welfare benefits.
The plea further claimed that if the linkage was implemented mechanically, between 35 lakh and 60 lakh ration cards could become inactive across the state, potentially affecting access to subsidised food grains and nutritional assistance for economically vulnerable sections of society.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission of India, the petitioner argued that exclusion from the electoral rolls through the SIR process did not establish either citizenship status or economic ineligibility. It was submitted that using data collected for electoral revision for the entirely different purpose of determining welfare eligibility amounted to an impermissible exercise of statutory power.
The petition also alleged violations of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, contending that the proposed linkage would deprive affected individuals of food security benefits without affording them an opportunity of hearing. It was argued that such action would be contrary to principles of natural justice and the constitutional obligation of the state to protect welfare entitlements.
The petitioner further invoked the principle of non-retrogression, submitting that benefits already conferred under welfare schemes should not be withdrawn through unrelated administrative mechanisms.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar measures were allegedly being adopted in other states and that the issue, therefore, had wider national implications. It was also argued that since the Supreme Court had previously considered challenges relating to the SIR process, the matter deserved urgent consideration before the Apex Court.
The Bench, however, was not persuaded. Justice Nagarathna questioned the maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and observed that the controversy raised a separate legal issue concerning the continuation or discontinuation of welfare benefits rather than the validity of the SIR exercise itself.
The Court noted that a preliminary determination was necessary to ascertain whether the alleged deprivation of ration and welfare benefits was in fact attributable to the SIR process or stemmed from independent policy considerations.
Observing that the Calcutta High Court had resumed functioning after the summer recess and was the appropriate forum to examine the factual and legal issues involved, the Supreme Court declined the request for urgent listing and directed the petitioner to seek relief before the High Court.
The post Supreme Court directs petitioners to approach Calcutta High Court over plea challenging ration exclusion linked to SIR in West Bengal appeared first on India Legal.