Explosive court ruling on SRD grant
Government ordered to “progressively increase” the grant and income threshold, and allow in-person applications
Regulations limiting the access to the R370-a-month Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant have been found to be unconstitutional and invalid by the High Court in Pretoria on Thursday. Archive photo: Ashraf Hendricks
- The Pretoria High Court has declared some Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant regulations unconstitutional.
- This included the online-only application requirement, the R624 monthly income threshold, and the grant’s value.
- Judge Leonard Twala ordered the government to progressively increase the grant to align with inflation and the cost of living.
- The judge said that gifts and once-off payments must be excluded from the income threshold.
- Advocacy groups IEJ and #PayTheGrants welcomed the judgment, calling it a victory for South Africans and activists who tirelessly fight for better social assistance policies.
Regulations limiting the access to the R370-a-month Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant are unconstitutional and invalid, the high court in Pretoria ruled on Thursday. The court also ordered the government to increase the grant amount and the income threshold to qualify for it.
Introduced in 2020 as an emergency response to the Covid pandemic, the SRD grant was initially set to last six months but has been extended annually. The value of the grant was raised from R350 to R370 in April 2024. The grant is available to people who get less than R625 per month, with SASSA conducting monthly checks on applicants’ bank accounts to ensure they continue to meet this criteria. This often means millions of people receiving financial donations or assistance from friends and relatives, are excluded from receiving the grant.
In October 2024, the #PayTheGrants campaign and the Institute of Economic Justice (IEJ) challenged the government’s SRD grant regulations, arguing that these rules exclude millions of potentially eligible South Africans.
Among the issues raised were the exclusive reliance on online applications, the definition of income and financial support, and the reduction of the income threshold for eligibility. They also asked the court to declare that SASSA’s failure to pay successful applicants the SRD grant, timeously or at all, is unconstitutional and unlawful.
The case was heard by Judge Leonard Twala. Advocate Jason Brickhill from the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI), for the applicants, argued that the SRD grant’s regulations created significant barriers for vulnerable groups, particularly by restricting applications to online submissions. He said this excluded many people without access to smartphones, computers, or the internet. He said that SASSA’S R624 income threshold test included “any income”, meaning those who receive another grant on behalf of the beneficiary like the child support or disability grants, were automatically disqualified.
Advocate Gilbert Marcus, representing the National Treasury, argued that adjusting the SRD grant for inflation could impact the other seven social assistance grants. He said the SRD grant was meant to be temporary and cautioned that expanding it could undermine broader poverty reduction strategies focused on economic growth and job creation.
Marcus emphasised the government’s fiscal challenges, adding that expenditure exceeds revenue by R322-billion.
After the National State of Disaster ended in April 2022, the grant was moved from the Disaster Management Act to the Department of Social Development’s (DSD) Social Assistance Act (SAA). New regulations reduced the monthly income threshold from R595 to R350, and limited applications to online submissions. Bank verification was also used to assess applicants’ financial means each month.
In his ruling, Judge Twala noted that the shift in regulations led to a sharp drop in successful applicants. From March to April 2022, applications decreased from over 15.8-million to 8-million, and approvals fell from about 11-million to 5.6-million.
The number of successful applicants continued to decrease, with only about 8-million of 14-million applicants approved by March 2023. This reduction resulted in Treasury cutting its budget for the SRD grant from R44-billion to R36-billion in 2023/2024, the judgment read.
Twala agreed with the government that when public money is used to provide benefits to citizens, procedural safeguards are necessary. But he said that these must be “reasonable and fair”.
He said there was “no reasonable justification” to subject potential beneficiaries, “who are mainly poor and vulnerable members of society, to a solely online application process”. He agreed with the applicants that the majority of people with insufficient means to support themselves and their dependents do not have smartphones, access to computers and the internet.
Judge Twala noted that up to 15% of successful applicants do not receive their grant payments each month. “The respondents offered no defence for the non-payment of the SRD grant to successful applicants except to say that the system experienced some teething problems and that some of the successful applicants failed to furnish their correct banking information and cellphone numbers.”
“The SRD grant is meant for poor people and to alleviate hunger. For this group of society to not receive the grant timeously or at all has dire consequences,” Twala said.
Activists welcome ruling
In his ruling, Judge Twala declared that the regulation restricting applications to an online platform is unconstitutional and must be amended to allow in-person applications.
He also ordered that the definition of “income” be changed to include only regular payments from formal or informal employment, business activities, or investments, excluding once-off payments or gifts. (SASSA’s system is not currently implemented in a way that can differentiate between these categories and it’s unclear how this can be done. - Editor)
Judge Twala ruled that the fixed income threshold of R624 per month was “unconstitutional and invalid”. He directed the government to “progressively increase the threshold” in a manner that takes into account “the right to social assistance, inflation, and the cost of living”.
The ruling also found the grant value to be insufficient.
Twala ordered the Social Development minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, to “devise and implement a plan to redress the retrogression in the value of the SRD grant and income threshold and progressively increase the value of the SRD grant”. This plan must be delivered to the court in four months.
This ruling has been welcomed by Gilad Isaacs of the IEJ, calling it a crucial victory for vulnerable South Africans. “The judgment refuses to allow the National Treasury to justify indignities visited on the most vulnerable by claiming that the enjoyment of our rights is unaffordable,” he said.
Elizabeth Raiters, deputy chair of #PayTheGrants, said, “This is a great day not only for beneficiaries but also for the activists of #PayTheGrants who have been working tirelessly with no funding, no proper resources, only maybe a broken cellphone in their hands and some data,” Raiters said. “I hope the government can start working together with NGOs like #PayTheGrants … Hand in hand these issues can be solved.”
In a brief statement the Social Development said: “The Department is studying the judgement and will respond in due course.”
Support independent journalism
Donate using Payfast
Next: Secretary says she received “threatening call” after complaint against judge
Previous: Plagued by illegal dumping, residents clean up filthy suburb
© 2025 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.
We put an invisible pixel in the article so that we can count traffic to republishers. All analytics tools are solely on our servers. We do not give our logs to any third party. Logs are deleted after two weeks. We do not use any IP address identifying information except to count regional traffic. We are solely interested in counting hits, not tracking users. If you republish, please do not delete the invisible pixel.