The Supreme Court orally observed that deletion from electoral rolls does not by itself lead to loss of citizenship benefits such as PDS rations, during a hearing on a West Bengal SIR matter. The court did not pass a formal order to this effect.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made an oral observation that its earlier judgement in the Bihar SIR matter held that deletion from the electoral roll alone will not lead to loss of other citizenship benefits. The observation came during a hearing on the West Bengal SIR matter, where the court was told that people excluded from electoral rolls are being deprived of rations under the Public Distribution System (PDS) and other benefits such as domicile certificates.
Senior Advocate Rauf Rahim, appearing for some petitioners, urged a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana to pass an order preventing such a 'ripple effect' following exclusion from electoral rolls due to SIR. The bench, however, did not pass any such order and said it was currently focusing only on issues relating to pending appeals.
The Supreme Court orally observed that deletion from electoral rolls does not by itself lead to loss of citizenship benefits such as PDS rations, during a hearing on a West Bengal SIR matter. The court did not pass a formal order to this effect.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made an oral observation that its earlier judgement in the Bihar SIR matter held that deletion from the electoral roll alone will not lead to loss of other citizenship benefits. The observation came during a hearing on the West Bengal SIR matter, where the court was told that people excluded from electoral rolls are being deprived of rations under the Public Distribution System (PDS) and other benefits such as domicile certificates.
Senior Advocate Rauf Rahim, appearing for some petitioners, urged a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana to pass an order preventing such a 'ripple effect' following exclusion from electoral rolls due to SIR. The bench, however, did not pass any such order and said it was currently focusing only on issues relating to pending appeals.