Imperfect law

Changes in Food Security Act imperative

The counsel by a committee of secretaries to restrict the application of the National Food Security Act (NFSA) chiefly to the deserving sections of the population seems sound and logical. This legislation, though meant to ensure the poor an easy access to basic food, has some ill-advised provisions that make its implementation an economic burden. The most imprudent of these is the arbitrarily determined norm of covering about two-thirds of the entire population (75 per cent rural and 50 per cent urban) under this law. This seems too high considering that the poverty level is now much lower. Equally questionable is the stipulation of supplying foodgrains to the beneficiaries at just Rs 3 per kg for rice, Rs 2 for wheat and Rs 1 for coarse cereals and putting down these rates in the law itself. That virtually precludes any revision in prices in sync with any increase in the cost of grain acquisition without altering the law. This apart, the categorisation of the beneficiaries under this statute is also not indisputable. The NFSA classifies all beneficiaries in just two groups — Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) Households, representing the poorest of the poor, and the Priority Households, where people living below poverty line (BPL) are clubbed, quite inexplicably, with those living above poverty line (APL). The prices of the grains have also, unjustifiably, been kept the same for all classes of beneficiaries irrespective of their income.

This is, indeed, not the first time that a cogent plea has come from a credible source for the amendment of the food law and rationalisation of the prices of grains distributed under it. The recently released Economic Survey 2019-20 has also suggested such a move, acknowledging the shortcomings of the food security law and its adverse impact on the food economy. It wants the law to be confined to the bottom 20 per cent of the population. The others could be supplied grains under the normal public distribution system (PDS) at the prices linked to the cost of procurement. Another high-level committee, headed by former food minister Shanta Kumar, appointed in 2014 by the Narendra Modi government, had also gone into this issue. Its report had categorically stated that a 67 per cent population coverage under the NFSA was on the higher side and should be trimmed to around 40 per cent. That would suffice to cover all the BPL families and, perhaps, some non-poor as well, it had maintained.

One of the significant observations made by this panel that did not get due attention was that the NFSA had actually proved disadvantageous for the BPL families. For it entitled them only to 5 kg of subsidised cereals per head per month, against 7 kg per person they were getting earlier under the targeted PDS. They, therefore, need to supplement the supplies by purchasing food from the market at high prices. The committee also suggested keeping the grain prices for the priority sector households under the NFSA at 50 per cent of the minimum support prices. Now that the government has at least three sensible reports to fall back upon, it should not lose more time in taking the final call on amending the NFSA. This is vital to tame the ever-burgeoning food subsidy.