On January 24, 2025, the Pretoria High Court declared six regulations governing the SRD grant unconstitutional and invalid. This decision has significant implications for the administration of the SRD grant, which was introduced in 2020 as an emergency response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The court found that the online-only application process, the R624.00 monthly income threshold, the grant's value, the definition of "income" and "financial support," the checks against databases indicating income or alternative financial assistance, and the restriction on unsuccessful applicants from relying on new information or evidence in an appeal were unconstitutional. Judge Twala highlighted that the online-only application process excluded individuals without access to smartphones, computers, or the internet, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups such as the elderly and those in rural areas. The court noted that "there was no reasonable justification to subject potential beneficiaries, who are mainly poor and vulnerable members of society, to a solely online application process." The court ordered the government to provide alternative application methods and redefine the income threshold to exclude gifts and one-off payments, aiming to remove barriers that previously prevented many South Africans from accessing financial support.
Additionally, the court mandated the government to progressively increase the grant amount to align with inflation and the cost of living, ensuring adequate financial support for recipients. The judgment criticized outdated government databases and blunt means-testing methods, calling for more accurate and fair verification processes. It also required that unsuccessful applicants be allowed to present new information or evidence in their appeals, making the process more just and accessible. Finally, the government must address issues of non-payment and late payment of approved beneficiaries, ensuring timely and reliable disbursement of funds.
The ruling is regarded as a triumph for social justice, ensuring that society's most vulnerable individuals can obtain the financial support they require. The government's response to the ruling will be critical in determining the future of the SRD grant. The Department of Social Development has stated that it is studying the judgment and will respond in due course. The court has directed the Social Development Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, to devise and implement a plan to progressively increase the value of the SRD grant and the income threshold. This plan must be delivered to the court within four months.
The ruling also has broader implications for social assistance policies in South Africa. It emphasizes the need for fair and reasonable procedural safeguards when public money is used to provide benefits to citizens. The judgment rejects the National Treasury's argument that adjusting the SRD grant for inflation could undermine broader poverty reduction strategies focused on economic growth and job creation. Instead, it affirms the importance of ensuring that social assistance programs are accessible to all eligible individuals.
However, the ruling also raises important questions about its long-term sustainability and the financial pressure it will place on the fiscus. The judgment requires the government to progressively increase the grant amount to align with inflation and the cost of living, which will undoubtedly have significant budgetary implications. As noted by the IEJ, the judgment stands to benefit up to 18.3 million people, including those currently excluded from the grant. This expansion will require substantial financial resources, and the government must carefully balance the need for social support with fiscal responsibility.
While the ruling is a significant victory for social justice, it also highlights the need for a sustainable long-term solution. The government must develop a comprehensive plan to ensure the financial viability of the SRD grant and explore options for incorporating it into broader social security policies. This approach will help ensure that the grant can continue to provide essential support to South Africans without placing undue strain on the fiscus.
The ruling is currently on appeal. The government's response and the final decision will be critical in shaping the future of the SRD grant and its role in supporting vulnerable South Africans. The outcome of this appeal will determine how the government will address the court's directives and whether the proposed changes will be implemented. Advocacy groups and beneficiaries alike are closely monitoring the situation, hoping for a resolution that will enhance the accessibility and effectiveness of the SRD grant.
This article was written by Yeshav Sewlal and supervised by Sushila Dhever.
