The Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 23, 2026) said petitioners must ideally move the Calcutta High Court with a plea that a West Bengal government order on June 4 effectively deprived lakhs purged from the voters’ list after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) access to subsidised ration and nutrition.

Appearing before a Bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity, an independent trade union of agricultural labourers, marginal farmers and sharecroppers, submitted that the outcome of the SIR has been linked to the working of the Public Distribution System (PDS) and Annapurna Yojana.

The PDS is a welfare mechanism intended to secure access to essential food grains for economically vulnerable households. The scheme operates within the framework of the National Food Security Act of 2013. It is designed to ensure basic sustenance to families facing economic hardships. The Annapurna Yojana is a welfare scheme intended to provide financial assistance to economically vulnerable women.

The farmers’ group, represented by advocate Prasanna S., argued that food security benefits for the economically vulnerable must not be dependent on unrelated considerations like SIR.

In an oral mentioning before the Bench, which also comprised Justice Joymalya Bagchi, the counsel submitted from the petition that the June 4 order reflected an “emerging pattern” among other States, indicating similar exclusionary linkages between SIR outcomes and welfare schemes.

The petitioner contended that the June 4 order has directed authorities to identify, scrutinise and delete beneficiaries on the basis of classifications generated during the SIR, effectively introducing into the food security framework considerations entirely foreign to the purposes of the National Food Security Act, 2013.

The counsel submitted that the June 4 order effectively treats electoral status, inclusion in electoral rolls and criteria generated during electoral verification exercises as valid determinants of entitlement to food security benefits.

Nevertheless, the impugned Order effectively treats such classifications as indicators of eligibility. The petitioners have argued that a linkage between SIR and food security schemes may lead to inactivation of the ration cards of 35 lakh and 60 lakh people in the State.

The counsel submitted that the deletion of names from the PDS and Annapurna Scheme only on the basis of the SIR would result in no opportunity of being heard for the aggrieved persons. Such a conduct on the part of the State militates against its welfare character under the Constitution. The petitioner said a welfare benefit once given by the State should not be taken away under the principle of non-retrogression.

The Bench however remarked that a primary determination has to be made if the cause of action in the petition really emanated from the SIR exercise, as canvassed by the petitioner, or was due to other policy reasons. The apex court urged the petitioner to first approach the High Court.