Calcutta HC Protects Ration Entitlement Pending Electoral Roll Dispute, Admits Writ on PDS-Citizenship Link
The Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench bars coercive action on a woman's RKSY-I ration card after her name was deleted from the electoral roll and her Form 6 application left pending for months.
The Calcutta High Court's Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri has admitted a writ petition filed by Umme Salma and passed an interim order restraining authorities from taking any coercive steps against her monthly ration entitlement under the RKSY-I card without the leave of the Court. Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, sitting singly in Court No. 10, framed two consequential questions: whether deletion of a name from the electoral roll can be a ground for denying public distribution system supplies, and whether such supply can be stopped during the pendency of an application under Form 6. The order was passed on 28 July 2026 in WPA 1402 of 2026.
The Dispute Before the Court
The petitioner's name appeared at serial no. 1202 in the final electoral roll published on 28 February 2026, but was marked as “deleted”. On 9 April 2026, she filed an online application in Form 6 seeking inclusion of her name in the electoral roll. Despite three months passing, no final decision on that application had been communicated to her.
Separately, an order dated 4 June 2026 was issued by the Special Secretary (IT&R) to the Government of West Bengal, Food & Supplies Department. Following that order, the local Fair Price Shop Dealer informed the petitioner that her ration entitlement was likely to be discontinued unless she could show that an appeal concerning her electoral status was pending before the relevant Tribunal or appellate forum. Apprehending that her RKSY-I card would be deactivated or deleted, she approached the High Court seeking an interim restraint against any adverse action on her monthly ration supply.
The Election Commission Impleaded
At the outset, on the prayer of the petitioner's advocate, the Court granted leave to implead the Election Commission of India as an additional party-respondent. The advocate-on-record was permitted to amend the cause-title accordingly. The petitioner was directed to serve an amended copy of the writ petition on the Election Commission and file an affidavit of service on the next date.
State's Position and the Court's Query
The advocate appearing for the State submitted, on instruction, that there was no basis for the petitioner's apprehension because her RKSY-I card was active as on the date of hearing. On a direct query from the Court as to whether supplies under the card would be affected or stopped, the State's advocate submitted that since the card was active, the supply of necessities would not be interfered with or stopped. The Court placed that submission on record.
Despite the State's assurance, the Court was not persuaded to leave the matter there. It admitted the writ petition and chose to independently examine whether electoral roll deletions could have downstream consequences on a person's food entitlement under the public distribution system.
Reliance on the Supreme Court's Ruling in Association for Democratic Reforms
The petitioner's advocate placed reliance on a recent Supreme Court decision in Association For Democratic Reforms and Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors., reported at 2026 SCC OnLine SC 990. The submission was that an enquiry conducted through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process does not amount to a determination of citizenship, and any action taken pursuant to it is confined to electoral consequences alone.
The Supreme Court's holding in paragraph 186(f) of that decision, as extracted in the order, reads: “Such an enquiry does not amount to a determination of citizenship in the strict sense, and any action taken pursuant thereto is confined to electoral consequences alone.” The Court went on to hold that such a determination does not divest the individual of claims of citizenship, nor does it foreclose a determination of that question by the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act.
The petitioner's case, as put before the Jalpaiguri bench, was that the deletion of her name from the electoral roll through the SIR process cannot be treated as a finding on her citizenship, and therefore cannot become the basis for withdrawing her entitlement to ration supplies.
The Larger Questions Framed
The Court found it prima facie apparent that the petitioner had taken steps to restore her electoral roll inclusion by filing Form 6, and that application remained pending. Against that backdrop, the bench framed the two issues it said required examination.
The first is whether deletion of a name from the electoral roll can constitute a valid ground for denying supply of necessities through the public distribution system. The second is whether such supply can be stopped or threatened with stoppage during the pendency of an application under Form 6. The Court noted that both issues needed to be gone into, and admitted the writ petition on that basis.
Directions to Respondents
The Court directed the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Cooch Behar (Sadar), being the third respondent, and the Electoral Registration Officer, 4-Cooch Behar Dakshin Assembly Constituency, being the fourth respondent, to file reports in the form of affidavits within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was given one week thereafter to file a reply, if any.
Parties were given liberty to mention the matter for enlistment after the period fixed for the exchange of affidavits expired.
Outcome
The writ petition WPA 1402 of 2026 was admitted. An interim order was passed directing that the respondent authorities shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner with regard to her monthly ration entitlement without the leave of the Court. The Election Commission of India was added as a party-respondent. The matter was posted for further proceedings after the exchange of affidavits.