Can Deletion From Electoral Roll Justify Denial Of Ration? Calcutta High Court Seeks Authorities' Reply, Grants Interim Protection To Man
The Calcutta High Court has granted interim protection to a man apprehending discontinuation of her ration benefits after her name was deleted from the electoral roll, observing that the larger question requiring consideration is whether deletion of a person's name from the electoral roll can be a ground to deny benefits under the Public Distribution System.Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya...
The Calcutta High Court has granted interim protection to a man apprehending discontinuation of her ration benefits after her name was deleted from the electoral roll, observing that the larger question requiring consideration is whether deletion of a person's name from the electoral roll can be a ground to deny benefits under the Public Distribution System.
Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya was hearing a writ petition filed by Umme Salma challenging a June 4, 2026 order issued by the Special Secretary, Food & Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal. The petitioner alleged that the local Fair Price Shop dealer had informed her that her RKSY-I ration entitlement was likely to be discontinued unless she could show that an appeal regarding her electoral status was pending before the competent forum.
The Court observed: "The larger issue that arises for consideration is whether deletion of name from the electoral roll could have been a ground for denying supply of necessities through public distribution system. The other issue would be whether such supply can be stopped during pendency of an application under Form 6."
Holding that these questions required adjudication, the Court admitted the writ petition.
According to the petitioner, her name had appeared in the final electoral roll published on February 28, 2026, but was marked as "deleted". She thereafter filed an online Form 6 application on April 9, 2026 seeking restoration of her name in the electoral roll, which remained pending without any final decision.
During the hearing, the State submitted on instructions that the petitioner's RKSY-I card continued to remain active and assured the Court that her supply of essential commodities would not be interfered with or stopped.
The petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors. (2026 SCC OnLine SC 990), contending that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process involves only a limited enquiry for electoral purposes and does not amount to a determination of citizenship.
The High Court referred to paragraph 186(f) of the Supreme Court judgment, which clarified that the Election Commission's enquiry into citizenship is confined to determining eligibility for inclusion in the electoral roll and does not divest an individual of citizenship claims or constitute a determination under the Citizenship Act.
Taking note of the submission, the Court observed that the petitioner had already initiated the statutory process for restoration of her name by filing Form 6 and that the application was still pending consideration before the competent authority.
Considering the State's statement that the petitioner's ration card remained active, the Court directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner in relation to her monthly ration entitlement without the leave of the Court.
The Court also permitted the petitioner to implead the Election Commission of India as a respondent and directed the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Cooch Behar (Sadar), and the Electoral Registration Officer of the concerned Assembly Constituency to file affidavits within two weeks.
Case: Umme Salma v. State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA 1402 of 2026 (Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri)
Mr. Purbayan Chakraborty, Ms. Khushi Kundu, Ms. Anupama Sarkar, Mr. Diptangshu Kar, Adv for the petitioner