The Supreme Court of Appeal will hear the state’s appeal against a high court ruling that the R370 social relief of distress (SRD) grant is a permanent facility, raising questions about its constitutional validity and financial sustainability.
The state’s appeal hinges on the argument that the high court’s decision to classify the SRD grant as permanent encroaches on executive powers and risks destabilizing the social assistance system. The case, which centers on the grant’s legal status and implementation, has drawn sharp contrasts between the government’s financial constraints and the advocacy group Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ)’s push for expanded access.
The High Court’s Ruling and the State’s Appeal
The Pretoria high court ruled that the SRD grant, initially introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, should be treated as a permanent feature under the Social Assistance Act. This finding, which the state now challenges, triggered a series of legal and financial debates. The government argues that the court’s decision undermines its authority to manage social grants and risks overwhelming the budget.
In appeal papers filed with the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), Adv Thembi Ntoane, representing the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa), contended that the high court’s ruling resulted in the erroneous declarations that the Covid-19 SRD Regulations 4 are unconstitutional and invalid. She emphasized that the court’s acceptance of the IEJ’s claims lacked supporting evidence, particularly regarding the exclusion of rural applicants due to the online-only application process.
EXPLAINED | The Supreme Court of Appeal case on
“It is submitted that in upholding the finding of the court a quo that the Covid-19 SRD is permanent would have the effect of completely changing Parliament’s purpose for the Covid-19 SRD and turning it to a permanent income grant for the unemployed,” she said. Ntoane argued that the high court erred in finding people eligible for the SRD grant who live in rural areas have no access to smartphones and that the department’s decision to only allow online applications excluded them. The court … accepted such submissions without any supporting evidence placed before the court,
she said.
The IEJ’s Case and the Digital Access Debate
The IEJ argues that the high court’s decision to invalidate the R624 monthly income threshold for eligibility and mandate an increase in grant value reflects a constitutional imperative to ensure social assistance reaches those in need. The group highlights that over 15-million people accessed the SRD through the digital platform, with 8.7-million receiving payments, as cited in Sassa’s 2024/25 annual report.
According to the high court’s findings, the Treasury only provided a budget for 10.5-million people, despite the number of eligible recipients potentially reaching 18.3-million. The court declared several grant regulations unconstitutional, including the restriction of applications to online-only submissions, which it deemed a bottleneck for vulnerable individuals. It also ruled that the income threshold of R624 per person per month is below the poverty line and therefore unconstitutional.
However, the state counters that the high court’s ruling ignored practical limitations. Adv Gilbert Marcus, representing Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana, noted that expanding the grant to 18-million people—rather than the current 10.5-million—would add R93.5bn to the state’s grant budget, straining an already constrained system. The premise of not increasing the threshold is to avoid collapsing the whole system,
Marcus argues.
State appeals finding that R370 SRD grant is a
Financial Pressures and Inflation Concerns
The SRD grant, initially set at R350 and raised to R370 in 2024, has faced criticism for failing to keep pace with inflation. The IEJ asserts that the real value of the grant has declined significantly since its inception, leaving recipients unable to meet basic needs. We are aware of no authority, and the IEJ parties cited none in the high court, for the proposition that a failure to increase grants by a certain amount — whether inflation-based or otherwise — is unconstitutional,
Marcus stated.
The government’s 2024/25 annual report reveals that over R266bn was spent on social assistance, underscoring the financial scale of the debate. The high court’s order to expand access and increase grant value has therefore sparked concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability, with the state warning that uncontrolled expansion could destabilize the broader social welfare framework.
The SCA’s Role and What Comes Next
The SCA will deliberate on the state’s appeal, with the outcome likely to define the SRD grant’s future. The court’s decision will address whether the grant remains a temporary measure or transitions into a permanent social safety net, a shift with profound implications for both beneficiaries and the state’s fiscal health.
The hearing, scheduled for Tuesday, will focus on whether the high court’s findings overstepped its authority and whether the state’s financial constraints justify maintaining the current eligibility criteria. A ruling could set a precedent for how emergency social grants are managed in future crises, balancing constitutional obligations with fiscal realities.
