| 
  
  
     
     
     
   | 
      
        | 
            
            
            
            
                      
             |   
          
          
          
          New Delhi, April 20 (IANS) The Supreme Court Wednesday slammed   the Planning Commission, asking it to explain how the percentage of people below   poverty line (BPL) was fixed at 36 percent and how their purchasing power has   remained unchanged since 1991.Judges Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma   asked Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia to file within a week an affidavit   explaining the Planning Commission's position.
 |  
  
      
	  
	  
	  The apex court bench asked the Planning Commission if it knew what the   purchasing power of the people was in 2011 and what it was in 1991. 
 The   court said several states, including Congress-ruled ones, have disputed the 36   percent figure and argued that people living below the poverty line were much   more in numbers.
 
 The court said that states have said that their own   figures were based on the parameters set by the Planning Commission.
 
 "We   have affidavits of all the states which have said that BPL figures were much   larger than 36 percent even on the basis of the parameters set by the Planning   Commission," the court said.
 
 Calling it very disturbing, the court asked   the Planning Commission to clarify how it divides the population on the basis of   BPL and APL (Above Poverty Line) and how it has fixed a cap of 36 percent.
 
 "It is astonishing how you fix that 36 percent population is in BPL   category."
 
 The court asked how could it be justified that people in BPL   category could survive on Rs.20 per head a day in urban areas and on Rs.11 in   rural areas.
 
 The court said that while India was "a powerful economy, yet   starvation deaths are taking place in many parts of the country. What a stark   contradiction in our approach? How can there be two Indias?"
 
 The court's   observation came in the wake of a petition by People's Union for Civil Liberties   which contended that adequate foodgrain were not being given to the people   living below the poverty line. It also challenged the Planning Commission   estimates of the BPL families.
 
 The court declined to accept the plea by   Additional Solicitor General Mohan Prasaran that malnutrition was decreasing in   the country.
 
 The court said: "We are very much concerned about   malnutrition. Malnutrition has increased in large parts of the country including   Maharashtra, Bihar and Orissa."
 
 It further asked Prasaran to examine the   causes of malnutrition among children. "You say that they (malnourished   children) are coming down. That is not the answer. It had to be   eliminated."
 
 The court asked if the central government, as a one time   measure, could allocate additional food grains for 150 poorest districts in the   country to eradicate malnutrition.
 
 
      
     comments... |  
   |