CHENNAI: The

has said distribution of free

and other such government schemes had made the people of

lazy and as a result workers had to be brought in from northern states.

Making it clear that the court is not against distribution of rice free of cost to economically backward people, a division bench of Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice Abdul Quddhose asserted that such schemes should not be provided to all irrespective of economic status. The court was hearing a habeas corpus plea moved by an accused in a rice smuggling case challenging his detention under the Goondas Act.

“It is brought to the notice of this court that for 2017-18, 2,110crore has been spent for distribution of free rice. 2,110crore is a huge amount, which should be spent judiciously including for infrastructure building. Government spends more than 2,000 crore and the money spent under this head would be like capital loss and the expenditure occurs every year and it is recurring capital loss, though it serves the people,” the bench said.

If the scheme benefits people other than poor, it would amount to unjustly enriching other people, at the cost of the public exchequer.

should be given to families below the poverty line alone, the bench added and directed the government to file a report whether any survey had been conducted to identify BPL families. If so, how many families were below the poverty line in Tamil Nadu? If rice was distributed only to those people, what would be the volume required and the budget needed?

To this, advocate general Vijay Narayan sought time to get instructions on whether the scheme could be amended so that those above the poverty line could be excluded.

Recording the submission, the bench said the state had to provide bare necessities such as rice and other groceries to the needy. However, successive governments had extended the benefits to all for political benefits.

“Consequently, people have become lazy and we have to import workers from northern states even for menial works,” the bench said and posted the plea to November 30 for further hearing.