India Explained
ImplementedINCManmohan Singh, coalition government

National Food Security Act (2013)

2013 law giving a legal entitlement to subsidised grain for up to 75% of rural and 50% of urban people (about 81 crore people on 2011 Census numbers), with 5 kg per person monthly and 35 kg for Antyodaya households.

Food security

Facts

  • The Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on 22 December 2011; the Standing Committee reported on 17 January 2013 and PRS records the Bill as withdrawn from Lok Sabha on 7 August 2013 [1]. The NFSA portal gives 5 July 2013 as the enactment date and 13 July 2013 as commencement [2].
  • The Act covers up to 75% of the rural and 50% of the urban population; priority households receive 5 kg of foodgrain per person per month and Antyodaya households 35 kg per household; the initial prices were Rs 3, 2 and 1 per kg for rice, wheat and coarse grains for three years, thereafter not above MSP [2].
  • State-wise coverage was set by the Planning Commission using NSS 2011-12 consumption data, and States identify the households; the eldest woman of 18 or above is the household head for ration cards; pregnant and lactating women get cash maternity benefit of not less than Rs 6,000 [2].
  • The maximum coverage is 81.34-81.35 crore persons (2011 Census basis), with about 80 crore covered at the time of the portal text [2][3].
  • The Economic Survey 2025-26 reports that cross-database checks flagged 8.51 crore records and States removed over 2.12 crore ineligible beneficiaries [3].
  • PDS leakage fell from an estimated 41.7% in 2011-12 to 24.1% in 2022-23 and 8.8% in 2023-24 (Puri and Pingali), a decline the authors cited attribute to the Act scaling up State reforms [4].

Why

Reasons given by those who did it

  • The NFSA portal states the Act 'marks a paradigm shift in the approach to food security from welfare to rights based approach' and legally entitles about two-thirds of the population to subsidised grain [2].
  • The portal states that Article 21 of the Constitution 'may be interpreted to include right to live with human dignity, which may include the right to food and other basic necessities' and presents the Act in that context [2].

Criticism of that reasoning

  • PRS, analysing the 2011 Bill, noted that the three-group classification 'may lead to large inclusion and exclusion errors', that the Bill gave no rationale for the cut-off percentages, and that implementation depended on State budget allocations [1].
  • The 2015 High Level Committee on FCI (Chair: Shanta Kumar) recommended reducing coverage from 67% to 40% of the population and moving towards cash transfers [5].

Benefits and concerns

Benefits (2)

  • Converted a scheme into a legal entitlement for a large share of the population.Up to 75% rural and 50% urban coverage; about 80 crore persons covered; entitlement is enforceable with grievance redress [2].
  • Lower measured leakage and improved targeting after implementation.Leakage 41.7% (2011-12) to 24.1% (2022-23) to 8.8% (2023-24) [4]; 2.12 crore ineligible beneficiaries removed after database checks [3].

Concerns (2)

  • Coverage is tied to old population and consumption data, so newly eligible people can be excluded.Coverage fixed with NSS 2011-12 and Census 2011 (81.35 crore) [2][3]. Court hearings on migrant labourers have raised the issue of workers without ration cards (reported by LiveLaw) [6].
  • Fiscal commitment and the design of subsidy delivery.The Cabinet decision of November 2023 sets an estimated Rs 11.80 lakh crore over five years for free grain to 81.35 crore beneficiaries [7]; the High Level Committee recommended lowering coverage and shifting to cash transfers [5].

Evidence points

+15.0
points, mean of two scorers (scale −25 to +25)
+13 to +17
range between the two scorers' totals
Medium confidence
1 criterion where scorers differ
ReachHow many people did the action materially affect?
Mean +5.0A +5B +5
Outcome evidenceDo official or independent data show the intended result (or its opposite), compared with the era baseline and peers?
Mean +3.5A +4B +3
Cost and sustainabilityIs the fiscal cost proportionate, and is the effect durable?
Mean +1.0A +1B +1
Process and rightsWas it made with debate, consultation and legal soundness, and did it respect rights and court rulings?
Mean +2.0A +3B +1Scorers differ
DeliveryWas it implemented as announced, on time and at scale?
Mean +3.5A +4B +3

Positive meanNegative meanScorer AScorer B

Scorer A. Legal entitlement covering about 80 crore people, with measured PDS leakage falling from 41.7% to 8.8%, though fiscal burden and outdated coverage data persist.

Scorer B. Legal entitlement covering about 80 crore people with measured leakage falling from 41.7% to 8.8%, at a large and growing fiscal cost.

Context used when scoring

Era baseline
In 2011-12 the TPDS covered BPL and APL households and an estimated 41.7% of PDS grain leaked (Drèze and Khera).
Lag before outcomes show
4 years
Shocks considered
covid-2020 (PMGKAY additional grain)
Uncertainty
Medium confidence. Scorer totals are +17 and +13. How uncertainty is shown.

In depth

The Act replaced the BPL and APL categories of the earlier scheme with two groups: priority households with 5 kg per person per month and Antyodaya households with 35 kg per household. It sets the share of the population covered, adds nutrition entitlements for children and pregnant and lactating women, and requires State grievance mechanisms.

Supporters, including the Government that enacted it, describe it as a rights-based law that reaches about two-thirds of the population. Critics before enactment, including PRS in its analysis of the 2011 Bill, pointed to risks of inclusion and exclusion errors and dependence on State finances. Later critics, including the 2015 High Level Committee on the FCI, argued for narrower coverage and cash transfers.

Official data and research show falling leakage after 2011-12 and large removals of ineligible entries after database matching. At the same time, coverage numbers remain tied to 2011 data, so the population entitled in practice does not follow current population. Free grain under PMGKAY since 2020 has meant that entitlement prices have been waived for the same beneficiaries.

The Act’s effect on nutrition or poverty outcomes is not isolated in the sources reviewed here. The evidence cited is mainly on coverage, targeting and fiscal scale.

Sources

  2. National Food Security Act portal: Act, coverage and entitlements
    Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of IndiaPrimary
  4. Declining PDS leakages: a look at the numbers
    Ideas for India (International Growth Centre)Academic

Last reviewed .Report an error orchallenge a score.

Related actions

  • ImplementedBJPSocial Welfare & Inclusion

    Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (free foodgrains, 2020)

    Free grain for National Food Security Act beneficiaries, begun in April 2020 as COVID-19 relief; from January 2024 free for five years for about 81.35 crore people, at an estimated Rs 11.80 lakh crore.

    Evidence points +9.5 (range +9.0 to +10.0)

  • ImplementedJDSocial Welfare & Inclusion

    Targeted Public Distribution System (1997)

    From June 1997 subsidised grain in the public distribution system was targeted at poor (BPL) households with separate prices for others; a 2005 evaluation found about 58% of central-pool grain did not reach BPL families.

    Evidence points +2.5 (range +1.0 to +4.0)