Social security pensions form a crucial safety net for vulnerable populations in Andhra Pradesh. The state boasts one of the highest budget allocations for pensions in the country, at Rs 33,000 crore annually. As of June 2024, the number of beneficiaries stood at 65.5 lakh, but this figure has since declined to 63.9 lakh. Calling the removal of beneficiaries "inhumane and politically motivated," the opposition YSR Congress Party recently said that it would “fight legally against any unfair removal of pensions and hold officials accountable in court.”
The enhanced pension amount of Rs 4,000 per month, implemented by the new Kootami (alliance) government—comprising the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), Jana Sena, and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—significantly surpasses the annual allocations of other states. However, despite this impressive fiscal commitment, implementation challenges have cast a shadow over the program’s equity and efficiency.
The current social security pension scheme of the Andhra Pradesh government is being implemented under the NTR Bharosa Pension Scheme. While the previous Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) government was providing a monthly pension of Rs 3,000 under the YSR Pension Kanuka scheme, the new government in July enhanced the amount to Rs 4,000. The NTR Bharosa provides monthly pensions of Rs 4,000 to senior citizens, transgender persons, widows, single women, weavers, dappu (percussion instrument) artists, toddy tappers, cobblers for whom it’s a traditional occupation, fisherfolk, and people living with HIV, based on certain eligibility criteria. It also provides Rs 6,000 to people with partial disability, Rs 15,000 to those with total disability, and Rs 10,000 for people affected by chronic illnesses such as chronic kidney disease and thalassemia.
A shrinking beneficiary base
Since the Chandrababu Naidu government’s tenure began six months ago, the number of pensioners has steadily declined across all districts. In this short period, nearly 1.57 lakh pensioners have been removed from the rolls, with deletions occurring incrementally each month, as per monthly pension data being tracked by LibTech India, a collective of engineers and social workers working on improving public service delivery.
This mass deletion raises serious questions about the transparency and fairness of the process. Adding to the uncertainty, the state government initiated a random verification exercise in December 2024 to identify ineligible pensioners. Preliminary results from a sample of 10,958 pensioners suggested that 5% were ineligible. The pilot exercise was conducted in one panchayat per district, with officials visiting each beneficiary’s house and asking questions related to poverty assessment, such as vehicle and property ownership, electricity consumption, employment and income details, etc.
Citing this survey, senior TDP leader and AP Assembly Speaker Ayyanna Patrudu said around 3.2 lakh pension beneficiaries were ineligible (5% of the total beneficiaries) and were availing the scheme with fabricated documents. He claimed that these people were causing a monthly loss of over Rs 120 crore to the government, adding that he had raised the issue with Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu.
Such claims have created confusion and panic, raising suspicions that even eligible pensioners might be removed. While filtering out government scheme beneficiaries is a common exercise, doing so in a hasty, unscientific manner can end up harming those who deserve the schemes the most, as seen in multiple instances across states.
This sequence of events – the pilot survey followed by concerning statements from public representatives – raises significant concerns. If the government’s verification exercise was designed to identify ineligible pensioners, why were 1.57 lakh beneficiaries removed before the study was even completed? Such premature actions undermine trust in the system and point to a lack of due diligence.
Moreover, the verification process itself has raised further questions. Will the exercise of identifying eligible beneficiaries be based solely on sampling? If so, what parameters will be used to extrapolate widespread ineligibility? There are fears that relying on a data-driven approach without adequate field-level verification might disproportionately harm marginalised groups.
YSRCP leader and former MLA TJR Sudhakar Babu recently accused CM Naidu of turning pension distribution into a political tool. He alleged that the present government was administering it through newly formed Janmabhoomi committees, leading to the exclusion of laksh of eligible pensioners. "Chandrababu harbored animosity against pensioners, pretending to increase pensions while actually slashing them,” he said, calling the exclusions “inhumane and politically motivated.”
He made the remarks in a statement issued on January 4, in response to a government memo issued the previous that revised the verification and reassessment protocols for health and disability pensions. Sudhakar Babu alleged that the protocols target pensioners unfairly, especially the disabled.
Vulnerable populations, such as the tribals, as well as persons with disabilities, are particularly at risk of being unfairly excluded due to systemic inefficiencies and the lack of thorough, on-the-ground checks.
Existing pension categories and household-level disbursement
The state offers a wide range of pensions, including for the elderly, widows, persons with disabilities, single women, and others, under specific eligibility criteria. However, Andhra Pradesh is unique in its household-level pension disbursement system, where only one pension is granted per household, even if multiple individuals qualify.
For instance, in a household with two elderly or disabled individuals eligible for pensions, only one would receive the benefit. This system is particularly problematic in tribal areas, where family structures tend to remain undivided.
A significant contributing factor is the issue of unsplit ration cards. For instance, when a family of five – a couple, two daughters, and a son—has a single ration card and the son gets married, he may be unable to get a separate ration card due to the absence of a marriage certificate or some other reason. This means his household will continue to be seen as a part of his parents’ household by the state, which will grant pension only to one eligible person even if multiple individuals qualify.
Without resolving this problem, eligible pensioners are often rejected because another family member, listed under the same ration card, is already receiving a pension. If the government intends to continue with the household-level pension system, it must first address the splitting of ration cards to ensure fairness and inclusivity.
Another troubling pattern is the disparity in pension distribution between relatively prosperous and vulnerable districts. Data shows that economically advanced districts like Krishna, Guntur, and Anakapalli have a higher proportion of pensioners compared to impoverished tribal districts like Alluri Sitharama Raju (ASR).
In ASR, challenges such as unsplit family ration cards, lack of documentation, and unresolved land disputes exacerbate exclusions. For tribal residents with forest patta lands, the situation is even more dire. Despite government policies permitting possession of up to 10 acres of land for pension eligibility, many patta holders are rejected because of incomplete or inaccurate land records.
The government has yet to take up mutations for forest patta lands on a large scale, leaving many tribal residents unfairly excluded from pensions. Rejecting eligible individuals under these circumstances is unjust and highlights the systemic gaps in pension administration.
The process of obtaining disability pensions is particularly cumbersome, as disabled individuals are required to make multiple visits to hospitals to obtain SADAREM (software for assessment of disabled for access, rehabilitation, and empowerment) certificates.
Contradictory policies
While the government hasn’t launched initiatives to register new pensioners as promised, its aggressive removal of existing beneficiaries creates a contradictory narrative. This approach not only undermines public trust but also calls into question the efficacy of pension administration.
Reports from the tribal areas highlight numerous cases of eligible individuals losing pensions due to technical or procedural hurdles. For example, Gollori Laxmi, a 62-year-old member of a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG) from Aakuthota village in G Madugula Mandal of ASR district, has struggled for years without an Aadhaar, preventing her from accessing vital social welfare programs such as pensions, PDS, and NREGA. LibTech India has observed many such instances across districts.
Additionally, TDP leaders had earlier criticised the six-point validation process introduced by the previous YSRCP regime to qualify for welfare schemes, alleging that it led to exclusions. The six-step process looked at family income, property and vehicle ownership, electricity consumption, government employment, and income tax payment. There is public expectation for the government to disband this system, at least for the tribal population, but even after the Naidu government came to power, there has been no indication of such a change.
The current household-level pension system also warrants scrutiny. By limiting pensions to one individual per household, the system inadvertently excludes many eligible individuals in joint families, particularly in tribal communities where household structures are less nuclear. A return to individual pensions could ensure greater inclusivity and justice for marginalised groups.
Moving forward
The Kootami government’s commitment to social security pensions is evident in its financial allocations, with over Rs 18,000 crore spent in the past five months. However, the state’s approach to verification and exclusion must be reconsidered. A robust system that prioritises field verification, supports documentation access, and addresses district-level disparities is imperative. Resolving structural issues like ration card splitting and providing guidelines for forest patta land mutations are essential to ensure fairness. Moreover, ensuring transparency by issuing notices, allowing beneficiaries to contest exclusions, and publicly displaying lists of pensioners would significantly improve accountability. The government must also invest in accessible application mechanisms for new pensioners to ensure no eligible individual is left behind. For Andhra Pradesh’s pension system to truly serve its purpose, it must balance fiscal prudence with social justice, ensuring that no vulnerable group is excluded from this essential safety net.
Chakradhar Buddha and P Karthik Reddy are affiliated with LibTech India, an action research and advocacy collective focused on improving public service delivery. Views expressed are the authors’ own.