The Delhi government defended its home rationing scheme, arguing before the Delhi Supreme Court on Monday that “politics has taken over the public interest”, calling the objections to it “selfish” and “camouflage”. The government called it a progressive system and said there was no explicit ban on it under the National Food Security Act (NFSA).
“It would take very, very strange legislation to propose that during this period, for the past two years, of the supply of almost anything and everything, be it Amazon or non-Amazon, be it grocery items like Swiggy or other supplies, Your Lordship is “said that this method should not be used to distribute rations to the needy and entitled,” argued senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represents the government, while hearing a petition contesting the program.
The government ended the petition filed by the Delhi Sarkari Ration Dealers Sangh as a proxy lawsuit claiming that while the NFSA is a central law, it depends on the state government, not the union, to do the operational work .
“Your lordships must see through this. Ultimately, politics took over the public interest. “Don’t call it Mukhya Mantri” is the objection. You [Those objecting] I don’t want a program that is both useful and publicly supported, ”said Singhvi, referring to the central government’s initial objection to the name of the program.
Singhvi said that “an overwhelming percentage of the people” in Delhi opted for the program through the “Reputation System”. “There are no limits to innovation. Are your lords being told that your lords will stop it because it is tacitly forbidden? ”He added.
Judge Vipin Sanghi and Judge Jasmeet Singh’s department bank, however, said in their observations that the issue is not that it is a better system, but that it falls under the NFSA. He recalled that the central government’s arguments were against the outsourcing of fair-priced businesses from the system.
“Even Ld ASG didn’t say there couldn’t be door-to-door delivery, but what is being said is that there is architecture. ‘FPS are an integral part of the whole system developed under the NFSA so you can’t do without them’ … that’s the point. What do you suggest? If you intend to take grain from the central government, give it to advertised contractors for cleaning and conversion and they will then deliver it to the beneficiaries, which means the FPS are nowhere, “the court said.
Singhvi claimed that there would be an FPS in each circle. “The home delivery company picks up from these circles … not bypasses,” he added. The clashes in the case will continue on December 3rd.
On November 22nd, additional attorney general Aishwarya Bhati had identified fair-priced business as an integral part of the NFSA’s architecture, arguing that a state had an obligation to ensure the implementation of the law in the manner it mandated. Bhati said the state is free to do more than the NFSA provides, but “cannot diminish the benefits of the NFSA.”
On Monday, Bhati said that he was interested in “full compliance with the mandate of the NFSA” and was not interested in anything else. She reiterated that no state is allowed to intervene in the NFSA mechanism. “They are free to do better, but not in such a way that they destroy the architecture of the NFSA. They don’t even want to do it as a pilot project like other countries, ”argued the central government advisor.
The petition submitted by Delhi Sarkari Ration Dealers Sangh called for tenders to implement the ration home delivery system, which aims to create a parallel mechanism for doorstep ration distribution under PDS by private dealers.