Calcutta HC Seeks Bengal Report On Ration, Annapurna Benefits After SIR

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday directed the West Bengal government to submit a report detailing the measures it has taken to ensure that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) does not deprive people whose names it removed from the electoral rolls of free ration and benefits under the Annapurna Yojana.

The direction came while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity, an independent trade union representing agricultural labourers, marginal farmers, and share-croppers.

The petition alleged that deleting beneficiaries’ names during the SIR process denied them ration and financial assistance under the Annapurna Yojana, a monthly support scheme for women.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee heard the matter and directed the state government to submit its observations in the case by July 21.

During the hearing, the state’s newly appointed Advocate General, Surajit Nath Mitra, informed the court that he had received a copy of the case only on Wednesday and said an investigation was necessary. He argued that only after a detailed inquiry would it be possible to identify those whose names deleted during the SIR process and determine whether they had been denied ration or Annapurna Yojana benefits.

“Based on that investigation, the state government will take steps, and the court will be informed,” Surajit Nath Mitra stated.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel argued that a state notification issued on June 19 stated that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) data would determine eligibility for ration and Annapurna Yojana benefits.

The counsel said the notification had raised concerns among vulnerable sections.

According to the petitioner, linking welfare eligibility to the SIR exercise could adversely affect beneficiaries.

According to the petitioner, eligible beneficiaries could lose their welfare entitlements.

The counsel also argued that the move could conflict with the National Food Security Act, 2013.

Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Ethanol Allocation In BPCL Plea