
## Demand For Grants 2020-21 Analysis Food And Public Distribution

The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has two Departments: (i) Food and Public Distribution, and (ii) Consumer Affairs. Allocation to the Ministry accounts for 4% of the budget of the central government in 2020-21.1 
Department of Food and Public Distribution is responsible for ensuring food security through procurement, storage, and distribution of food grains, and for regulating the sugar sector.2  In 2020- 21, the Department has been allocated Rs 1,22,235 crore (98% of the Ministry's allocation).3  This is 6% higher than the revised estimate of 2019-20. 

Department of Consumer Affairs is responsible for spreading awareness among consumers about their rights, protecting their interests, implementing standards, and preventing black marketing.4  In 2020-21, the Department has been allocated Rs 2,300 crore, which is 12% higher than the revised estimate of 2019-20.5 This note examines the allocations to the Department of Food and Public Distribution.  It also looks at the broad issues in the sector, along with key observations and recommendations made by expert committees over the years. 

## Overview Of Finances

% change 
in 2020-21 
Department 
2018-19 
Actuals 
2019-20 
Revised 
2020-21 
Budgeted 
over 
2019-20  
Food & Public Distribution 
1,07,078 
1,15,240 
1,22,235 
6.1% 
Consumer Affairs 
1,770 
2,050 
2,300 
12.2% 
Total 
1,08,848 
1,17,290 
1,24,535 
6.2% 

Sources:  Expenditure Budget, Union Budget 2020-21; PRS. 

In 2020-21, allocation to the Department of Food and Public Distribution has increased by Rs 6,995 crore (6.1%) over the revised estimate of 2019-20. However, the estimated expenditure for 2019-20 has reduced by 40% from Rs 1,92,240 crore at the budgeted stage to Rs 1,15,240 crore at the revised stage.  This is due to a Rs 75,532 crore cut in the allocation to food subsidy for the year 2019-20. Since 2016-17, the Department's expenditure has been much lower than the funds allocated to it in the budget (Figure 1) as an increasing portion of food subsidy was replaced by borrowings by the Food Corporation of India (FCI).  As a result, the payment due to FCI by the end of 2019-20 is estimated to be Rs 2.4 lakh crore.6 

In 2018-19, the Department utilised 61% of the 
allocation, while Rs 67,081 crore remained unspent.  
Due to this underspending trend, in 2020-21, the 
Department's allocation is Rs 18,285 crore less than 
what it spent five years ago (2015-16). 

 
Note: Figures for 2019-20 are revised estimates. Sources:  Expenditure Budget, Union Budgets (2010-20); PRS. 

## Food Subsidy

Food subsidy is the largest component of the 
Department's expenditure.  It accounts for 95% of 
the allocation to the Department in 2020-21 (details 
of other expenditure heads are given in Annexure).3 

The subsidy is given to the Food Corporation of 
India (FCI) and states for procuring food grains 
from farmers at government notified prices and 
selling them at lower subsidised prices (known as 
Central Issue Prices), under the National Food 
Security Act, 2013.3  The Act mandates coverage of 
75% of the population in rural areas and 50% in 
urban areas, and currently covers 81 crore people.7,8 

The subsidy also covers the storage cost incurred by 
FCI in maintaining buffer stocks in order to ensure 
food security in the country.3  Table 2 (on the next 
page) shows the expenditure on food subsidy during 
2010-21. 

The expenditure on food subsidy increased from Rs 
63,844 crore in 2010-11 to Rs 1,39,419 crore in 
2015-16.  The Standing Committee (2016-17) on 
Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution 
noted that the reasons for increase in food subsidy 
include: (i) increase in the procurement cost of food 
grains, (ii) non-revision of the Central Issue Prices 
since 2002, and (iii) implementation of the National 
Food Security Act, 2013 in all states.9 

## 

| % increase    | % of     |
|---------------|----------|
| Year          |          |
| Food          |          |
| over the      |          |
| subsidy       |          |
| previous year |          |
| allocation    |          |
| utilised      |          |
| 2010-11       | 63,844   |
| 2011-12       | 72,822   |
| 2012-13       | 85,000   |
| 2013-14       | 92,000   |
| 2014-15       | 1,17,671 |
| 2015-16       | 1,39,419 |
| 2016-17       | 1,10,173 |
| - 21%         |          |
| 82%           |          |
| 2017-18       | 1,00,282 |
| - 9%          |          |
| 69%           |          |
| 2018-19       | 1,01,327 |
| 1%            |          |
| 60%           |          |
| 2019-20       | 1,08,688 |
| 7%            |          |
| 59%           |          |
| 2020-21       | 1,15,570 |
| 6%            |          |
| -             |          |

Note:  Figures for the years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are estimates. Sources:  Expenditure Budget, Union Budgets (2011-21); PRS. 

However, since 2016-17, spending on food subsidy by the Department has comparatively decreased, as a major part of the funds allocated for food subsidy remain unspent (40% of the budget allocation was not utilised in 2018-19).  This underspending by the Department has increased over the years, even though the actual requirement of funds for food subsidy being higher than the amount it spends.10 This gap can be bridged if more funds are spent by the Department for food subsidy.  To fill this gap in the meanwhile and meet the cost incurred each year in subsidising food, FCI relies on borrowings. 

## Components Of Food Subsidy

Expenditure on food subsidy can be classified under three heads (break-up in Table 3): 

 
Subsidy to FCI:  The Food Corporation of 
India (FCI) receives subsidy for procuring food grains from farmers at government notified 
prices and selling them at lower subsidised prices.  It also receives subsidy for the storage cost incurred in maintaining buffer stocks. 
 
Subsidy to states:  Under the decentralised 
procurement scheme, states may choose to undertake the operations of procurement, storage, and distribution on behalf of FCI, for which they are provided with subsidy. 
 
Sugar subsidy:  Sugar subsidy is provided for 
giving one kg of sugar per month at subsidised rates to families covered under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (i.e. poorest of the poor families). 
Majority of the budget for food subsidy is allocated to FCI.  However, subsidy released to FCI by the Department has decreased from Rs 1.12 lakh crore in 2015-16 to Rs 70,098 crore in 2018-19.  This is due to a consistent cut in FCI's share of the food subsidy budget (for instance, Rs 68,025 crore, or 49%, cut in 2018-19 from the budgeted stage). 

% change in 
2020-21 over 
Subsidy 
2018-19  
Actuals 
2019-20  
Revised 
2020-21 
Budgeted 
2019-20 
Subsidy to FCI 
70,098 
75,000 
77,983 
4.0% 
31,029 
33,508 
37,337 
11.4% 
Subsidy to states (decentralised procurement) Sugar subsidy 
200 
180 
250 
38.9% 
Total 
1,01,327 1,08,688 
1,15,570 
6.3% 

Sources:  Demand no. 15, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Expenditure Budget, Union Budget 2020-21; PRS. 

## Issues In The Sector

FCI and state agencies procure food grains from 
farmers at the government notified Minimum 
Support Prices (MSPs).  These food grains are 
provided to the economically weaker sections at 
subsidised prices through fair price shops under the 
public distribution system.  The central and state 
governments provide food grains to beneficiaries 
under the National Food Security Act, 2013 as well 
as certain other welfare schemes such as the Mid-
Day Meal scheme.  In this section, we examine 
some issues relating to the: (i) pending dues of FCI, 
(ii) provision of food subsidy, (iii) Public 
Distribution System (PDS), and (iv) sugarcane dues 
to farmers. 

## Pending Dues Of Fci

The central government provides food subsidy to 
FCI as reimbursement of the loss it incurs in its 
procurement, storage, and distribution operations.  
The CAG (2019) observed that when the budget for 
food subsidy is not sufficient to clear the dues of 
FCI, such dues are carried over to the next year.11  
As a result of such carryovers each year, payment 
due to FCI for food subsidy has increased from Rs 
41,517 crore at the end of 2015-16 to Rs 2.4 lakh 
crore at the end of 2019-20.6  Note that the subsidy 
paid to FCI by the Department has decreased from 
Rs 1.12 lakh crore in 2015-16 to Rs 75,000 crore in 
2019-20.  Although the Department had received a 
much higher allocation during the period 2016-20 
for payment to FCI, due to budget cuts made during 
the year, the actual amount paid to FCI decreased.   

Sources:  Food Corporation of India; PRS. 

For instance, in 2019-20, subsidy to FCI has been cut by 50% from Rs 1.51 lakh crore at the budgeted stage to Rs 75,000 crore at the revised stage.  As the subsidy dues of FCI increased significantly vis-à-vis the budget expenditure, since 2017-18, all the payments being made to FCI by the Department are going towards clearing past dues.   
Due to this delay in clearing dues by the Department, FCI has to borrow money from various sources for giving subsidy and funding its operations.  When FCI uses such borrowings, the Department has to provide additional funds for payment of interest on these borrowings.  The CAG observed that the central government has adopted this off-budget method of financing the subsidy dues, thereby deferring the payment to FCI.12  This understates a particular fiscal year's expenditure by keeping deferred expenditure off-budget, and prevents transparent depiction of fiscal indicators.12 For instance, if the central government had to clear all the subsidy dues of FCI in the year 2019-20 itself, its fiscal deficit (borrowings) for the year 2019-20 would increase from 3.8% of GDP to 5% of GDP. Note that in November 2019, the Union Cabinet approved increasing the equity of FCI from Rs 3,500 crore to Rs 10,000 crore.13  As per the revised estimates for 2019-20, an amount of Rs 1,000 crore has been allocated for this purpose.  Further, Rs 1,000 crore has been budgeted for 2020-21.  This increased equity could be leveraged by FCI to borrow from the market. 

## Provision Of Food Subsidy

The Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS), through which food grains are distributed at subsidised prices, seeks to provide food security to people below the poverty line.  Over the years, while the spending on food subsidy has increased, the ratio of people below the poverty line has decreased from 54.9% in 1973-74 to 21.9% in 2011- 12 (Table 4). 

| Year    | Poverty ratio (in %)    |   No. of Poor (in crore)  |
|---------|-------------------------|---------------------------|
| 1973-74 | 54.9%                   |                      32.1 |
| 1977-78 | 51.3%                   |                      32.9 |
| 1983-84 | 44.5%                   |                      32.3 |
| 1987-88 | 38.9%                   |                      30.7 |
| 1993-94 | 36.0%                   |                      32   |
| 2004-05 | 27.5%                   |                      30.2 |
| 2011-12 | 21.9%                   |                      26.9 |

Note:  Figures from 1973-74 to 2004-05 have been computed using the Lakdawala methodology, and figures for 2011-12 have been computed using the Tendulkar methodology. Sources:  Planning Commission; PRS. 

A similar trend can also be seen in the proportion of undernourished persons in India, which reduced from 23.7% in 1990 to 15.2% in 2014 (Table 5). 

Number of 
undernourished 
Year 
Proportion of 
population 
persons (in 
undernourished (in %) 
crore) 
1990-92 
23.7% 
21.0 
2000-02 
17.5% 
18.6 
2005-07 
20.5% 
23.4 
2010-12 
15.6% 
19.0 
2014-16 
15.2% 
19.5 

Note:  Figures for 2014-16 are provisional estimates. Sources:  Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2015: Table 5.14, Chapter 5, Volume II, Economic Survey 2015-16; PRS. 

Nutritional balance:  The National Food Security 
Act, 2013 guarantees five kg of food grains per 
person per month to entitled beneficiaries at 
subsidised prices.  Further, Antyodaya Anna Yojana 
households, which constitute the poorest of the poor, 
are entitled to 35 kg per household per month at 
subsidised prices.  Presently, the food items 
provided by the central government for distribution 
under PDS are rice, wheat, and sugar.14 

As can be seen in Figure 3 and Figure 4, there has 
been a change in the pattern of nutritional intake 
among people in both rural and urban areas (details 
given in Tables 9 and 10 in the Annexure). 

Although cereals or food grains contain only 10% 
protein, their share as a percentage of the total 
protein intake has been over 50% in both rural and 
urban areas.15  However, other foods such as meat 
and pulses contain more than 20% protein but 
contribute to only 15% of the total protein intake of 
the country.15 

The share of cereals in calorie intake has reduced by 
10% in rural areas and 7% in urban areas, whereas that of milk, eggs, fish, and meat has increased (Table 9 in the Annexure).15  This indicates a reduced preference for wheat and rice, and a rise in preference towards other protein-rich food items.  
The National Food Security Act, 2013 requires the central and state governments to undertake steps to diversify commodities distributed under PDS.7 
Imbalance in farm production:  Minimum Support Price (MSP) is the price at which the government agencies purchase farmers' produce of certain notified crops.  Typically, MSP is higher than the market price and seeks to incentivise farmers to grow crops on which the support is offered.  As wheat and rice (paddy) are major food grains provided under the PDS, the focus of procurement is on these crops.  While a significant proportion of these two crops are procured at MSP, there is very limited procurement of other crops (Figure 5).16,17,18 This skews the production of crops in favour of wheat and paddy, and does not offer an incentive for farmers to produce other items such as pulses.19 Further, this puts pressure on the water table as these crops and sugarcane (which also has an assured procurement price- see page 6 and 7) are water-intensive crops.20 As procurement of wheat and paddy is done at MSP (which is often above market prices), its stocks have grown.  At the end of 2018-19, the stocks of these crops were more than the offtake for a full year (see Table 12 in the Annexure). 

## Revision Of Central Issue Price (Cip)

Under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA), food subsidy is given to beneficiaries at the CIP, which was last revised in 2002.  CIP for wheat and rice can be found in Table 6. 

Table 6: Central Issue Price (Rs/Kg) 
Commodity 
AAY 
BPL 
APL 
Rice 
3.00 
5.65 
7.95 
Wheat 
2.00 
4.15 
6.10 

Note:  AAY - Antyodaya Anna Yojana, BPL - Below Poverty Line, APL - Above Poverty Line. Sources:  Food Grain Bulletin (December 2019), Department of Food and Public Distribution; PRS. 

In comparison to the CIP, the economic cost 
(including procurement, stocking, distribution) for 
wheat is Rs 27/kg and for rice is Rs 37/kg as of 
February 2020.21  Food subsidy is calculated as the 
difference between the economic cost of procuring 
food grains, and their CIP.   

While the economic cost for rice has increased from 
Rs 1,098/quintal (Rs 11/kg) in 2001-02 to Rs 
3,727/quintal (Rs 37/kg) in 2020-21, and of wheat 
from Rs 853/quintal (Rs 9/kg) to Rs 2,684/quintal 
(Rs 27/kg) over the same period, the CIP has not 
been revised.21  This has led to an increasing gap 
between the economic cost and CIP, leading to an 
increase in expenditure on food subsidy.29  Trends in 
economic cost, CIP and subsidies for wheat and rice 
can be found in Figure 6 and Figure 7. 

In 2018-19, the Ministry had stated that increasing 
the CIP could be one of the measures to bridge the 
gap between the funds it requires, and the funds it is 
actually allocated.  Details related to the 
procurement of food grains, off-take and stock can 
be found in Table 12 of the Annexure. 

## Delivery Of Food Subsidy

Leakages in PDS:  Leakages refer to food grains 
not reaching intended beneficiaries.  Note that 
recent public data on leakage is not available.  The 
latest available data is for 2011.  According to the 
2011 data, leakages in PDS were estimated to be 
46.7% (see Table 11 in the Annexure).22,23   

Leakages may be of three types: (i) pilferage or 
damage during transportation of food grains, (ii) 
diversion to non-beneficiaries at fair price shops 

through issue of ghost cards, and (iii) exclusion of people entitled to food grains but who are not on the beneficiary list.24,25  Studies have shown that targeting mechanisms such as TPDS are prone to large exclusion and inclusion errors.26   
Exclusion errors occur when entitled beneficiaries do not get food grains.   It refers to the percentage of poor households that are entitled to but do not have PDS cards.  Exclusion errors had declined from 55% in 2004-05 to 41% in 2011-12 (Figure 8).   
Inclusion errors occur when those that are ineligible get undue benefits.  Inclusion errors increased from 29% in 2004-05 to 37% in 2011-12. Declining exclusion errors and increasing inclusion errors are due to two reasons.  First, increase in the coverage of TPDS has reduced the proportion of poor who do not have access to PDS cards.  Second, despite a decline in poverty rate, non-poor are still identified as poor by the government thus allowing them to continue using their PDS cards.27  
 
Sources:  Evaluation study on the role of PDS in shaping households and nutritional security in India, NITI Aayog, December 2016; PRS. 

Note that under NFSA, states are responsible for the identification of beneficiaries.  In 2016, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) found that this process had not been completed by the states, and 49% of the beneficiaries were yet to be identified.28   
Alternative subsidy systems:  Over the years, several solutions that have been suggested include: (i) DBT of food subsidy, and (ii) end-to-end computerisation of the entire system.22,46   
The NFSA states that the centre and states should introduce schemes for cash transfers to beneficiaries.7  Various experts and bodies have also suggested replacing TPDS with a Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) system.29,30  Advantages and disadvantages of these methods of delivering benefits have been discussed below. 

 
TPDS:  TPDS assures beneficiaries that they 
would receive food grains, and insulates them against inflation and price volatility.  Further, food grains are delivered through fair price shops in villages, which are easy to access.31,32 

However, high leakages have been witnessed in 
the system, both during transportation and 
distribution.  These include pilferage and errors 
of inclusion and exclusion from the beneficiary 
list.  In addition, it has also been argued that the 
distribution of wheat and rice may cause an 
imbalance in the nutritional intake.7  
Beneficiaries have also reported receiving poor 
quality food grains as part of the system.   

 
Cash Transfers:  Cash transfers seek to 
increase the choices available with a beneficiary, and provide financial assistance.  It has been argued that the costs of DBT may be lesser than TPDS, owing to lesser costs incurred on transport and storage.  These transfers may also be undertaken electronically.31,32  

On the other hand, it has been argued that cash 
received as part of DBT may be spent on non-
food items.  Further, such a system may expose 
beneficiaries to inflation.  In this regard, one 
may need to consider the low penetration and 
access to banking in rural areas.33 

In 2015, the Department released two notifications: 
The Cash Transfer of Food Subsidy Rules and The 
Food Security (Assistance to State Governments) 
Rules.34,35   As per these notifications, the central 
government offers state governments two choices 
for reforming their respective PDS machinery:        
(i) replacing the existing PDS with DBT, or (ii) Fair 
Price Shop automation, which involves installation 
of Point of Sale devices, for authentication of 
beneficiaries and electronic capturing of 
transactions. 

So far, more than 4.3 lakh (82%) Fair Price Shops 
have been automated across the country.36  Details 
regarding the status of computerisation of PDS can 
be found in Table 13 of the Annexure.   

The High-Level Committee on Restructuring of FCI 
in 2015 had suggested that switching to DBT for 
food subsidy would reduce the food subsidy bill of 
the government by more than Rs 30,000 crore.22  
While making this recommendation, the Committee 
illustrated this by taking the case of subsidy given 
on rice (Table 7).  It assumed that as part of DBT, 
the government would transfer Rs 22/Kg for rice to 
a beneficiary. 

| 1. CIP                                     | Rs 3/Kg    |
|--------------------------------------------|------------|
| 2. MSP                                     | Rs 20/Kg   |
| 3. Subsidy (3=2-1)                         | Rs 17/Kg   |
| Rs 27/Kg                                   |            |
| 4.Cost to government                       |            |
| (Subsidy + Costs on procurement, storage   |            |
| and distribution)                          |            |
| 5. Cash subsidy to beneficiaries           | Rs 22/Kg   |
| 6. Government saving (6=5-4)               | Rs 5/Kg    |
| 7. Increase in beneficiary benefit (7=5-3) | Rs 5/Kg    |

Sources: High-Level Committee Report on Reorienting FCI, January 2015; PRS. 

 
 
Aadhaar: The High-Level Committee (2015) had also recommended the introduction of biometrics and Aadhaar to plug leakages in PDS.  Such transfers could be linked to Jan Dhan account, and be indexed to inflation.22  As of December 2017, 119 crore Aadhaar cards have been issued, covering 
98% of the population.37 
In February 2017, the Ministry made it mandatory for beneficiaries under NFSA to use Aadhaar as proof of identification for receiving food grains.38 This was aimed to facilitate the removal of bogus ration cards, check leakages and ensure better delivery of food grains.22,39,40 Note that beneficiaries may face issues with Aadhaar authentication while availing PDS benefits. According to data submitted by UIDAI to the Supreme Court in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India, the Aadhaar authentication failure rate (across all purposes) was 8.5% for iris scans and 6% for fingerprints.41  However, in the judgement, the Court had held that services cannot be denied due to Aadhaar authentication failure. Further, as of July 2017, while 100% ration cards had been digitised, the seeding of these cards with Aadhaar was at 79%.42  Between 2016 and 2018, around 1.5 crore ration cards were deleted due to detection of bogus, fake, and duplicate cards during Aadhaar seeding (see Table 15 of the Annexure for the state-wise breakup). 

## Current Challenges In Pds

Storage:  The Department allocates funds for the construction of godowns to increase storage capacity.  This includes allocations for the Warehousing Development and Regulatory Authority (WADA).  In 2019-20, Rs 60 crore has been allocated for storage and godowns, and Rs eight crore has been allocated to WADA. As of December 2017, the total storage capacity in the country is 725 lakh tonnes, of which 359 lakh tonnes is with the FCI and 366 lakh tonnes is with the state agencies.43  The total stock of food grains in the country as of July 2017 was 555 lakh tonnes.   
The CAG in its performance audit found that the available storage capacity in states was inadequate for the allocated quantity of food grains.44  For example, as of October 2015, of the 233 godowns sanctioned for construction in Maharashtra, only 93 had been completed.  In Assam, although the storage capacity was enough for the state's allocation, the conditions of the godowns were found to be too damp for storage.  Some of the storage in Jharkhand was also found to be unfit, either because of its remote location or the damaged condition of the godowns. The CAG also noted that in four of the last five years, the stock of food grains in the central pool had been higher than the storage capacity available with the FCI (see Figure 9).33  
 
Sources: CAG Performance Audit on Preparedness for Implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013; PRS. 

As seen in Figure 9, it was only in 2015 that the 
stock of food grains was lower than the storage 
capacity.  According to the CAG, this was owing to 
an increase in procurement under Decentralised 
Procurement (DCP), and less food grains in the 
central pool.33  Under DCP, the state governments 
undertake procurement, storage and distribution of 
food grains on behalf of the central government.  
The states are reimbursed by the centre for the 
expenditure incurred by them.45   

The Standing Committee on Food, Consumer 
Affairs and Public Distribution (2017) has 
recommended increasing the procurement 
undertaken by states, and reducing the expenditure 
on centralised procurement by the FCI.9  They noted 
that this would drastically reduce the transportation 
cost borne by the government as states would 
distribute the food grains to the targeted population 
within their respective states.  As on December 
2019, only 17 states have adopted decentralised 
procurement.36 

Fair Price Shops:  Fair Price Shops are licensed 
ration shops which provide food grains and kerosene 
under the public distribution system.  They may also 
sell certain other goods in some states.  It has been 
observed by various experts and the Ministry that 
the margins on which the Fair Price Shops operate 
are low.46  Further, in the absence of economic 
viability, there may be cases where the dealer resorts 
to unfair practices.  In order to make these shops 
viable, some states have taken steps such as: 

 
Chhattisgarh provided seed capital of Rs 75,000 to each fair price shop free of any interest for 20 years.  It also increased the commission on food grains from Rs 8/quintal to Rs 30/quintal. 
 
States such as Assam and Delhi have permitted the sale of non-PDS items at these fair price shops.  Such items include oil, potatoes, onion, tea, and mobile recharge coupons. 

## Sugarcane Dues

The Department is also responsible for formulation of policies and regulations for the sugar sector. In 2020-21, Rs 2,602 crore has been allocated for providing assistance to sugar mills through various measures, which is 97% higher than the revised estimate of 2019-20.  These measures include: (i) direct assistance to mills for clearing sugarcane dues of farmers, (ii) reimbursing the mills for maintaining buffer stocks, (iii) facilitating exports, and (iv) improving ethanol production capacity.  The assistance is being provided with the aim of improving the liquidity of sugar mills in order to facilitate payment of sugarcane dues of farmers.47,48 Note that as on September 15, 2019, payment of Rs 11,784 crore is pending with sugar mills as dues for 2018-19 and earlier years.49  State-wise details of the dues are given in Table 16 of the Annexure. These sugarcane dues accumulate due to delay in payments to farmers for their produce.  In years of surplus production, the sugar prices fall impacting the sale of sugar and liquidity of mills.50  As a result, mills are unable to pay farmers leading to delay in payments and accumulation of dues.  Note that sugar mills are obligated to purchase sugarcane from all farmers within their specified area at a price fixed by the government.  Conversely, farmers are bound to sell to the respective mills. Rationalisation of sugarcane pricing has been recommended as one of the steps for improving the 
                                                           
Crores.) as on 27.01.2020", Website of Food Corporation of India,  as accessed on February 5, 2020, http://fci.gov.in/finances.php?view=22. 7 The National Food Security Act, 2013, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, http://www.egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2013/E_29_2013_429 .pdf. 8 Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1378, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, December 18, 2018, http://164.100.24.220/loksabhaquestions/annex/16/AU1378.pdf. 9 Report no. 15, Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution: 'Demands for Grants (2017-18), Department of Food and Public Distribution', Lok Sabha, March 
2017, http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Food,%20Consumer%20Affa irs%20&%20Public%20Distribution/16_Food_Consumer_Affair s_And_Public_Distribution_15.pdf. 

10 Report no. 20, Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution: 'Demands for Grants (2018-19), Department of Food and Public Distribution', Lok Sabha, March 
2018, 

efficiency of the sugar industry.  The central 
government fixes the Fair and Remunerative Price 
(FRP) for sugarcane, which is the minimum price 
that must be paid by sugar mills to farmers.51  The 
FRP is fixed based on the recommendations of the 
Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices 
(CACP).  It is recommended taking into 
consideration: (i) the cost of production, (ii) rate of 
recovery of sugar, (iii) availability of sugar to 
consumers at a fair price, (iv) returns to farmers 
from alternative crops and the general trend of 
prices of agricultural commodities, (v) realisation 
from sale of by-products, and (vi) reasonable 
margins for farmers on account of risks and profits. 

State governments can also intervene in sugarcane 
pricing by announcing a State Advised Price (SAP).  
SAPs are usually much higher than the FRP.  This 
creates a distortion in the industry as SAP is neither 
linked to sugar recovery nor it takes into account 
domestic and global prices and other relevant 
parameters.  As a result, when sugar prices are low, 
mill owners are unable to pay farmers resulting in 
delayed payment and accumulation of dues.  The 
CACP (2018) recommended that the FRP must be 
implemented in all states and the announcement of 
SAP by states should be stopped immediately.51     
In case state governments decide to continue with 
SAP, the difference between SAP and FRP should 
be paid by the state governments directly to farmers.

http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Food,%20Consumer%20Affa
irs%20&%20Public%20Distribution/16_Food_Consumer_Affair
s_And_Public_Distribution_20.pdf. 
11 Report no. 20 of 2018, 'Compliance of the Fiscal 
Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003 for the year 
2016-17', Comptroller and Auditor General of India, January 
2019, 
https://www.cag.gov.in/sites/default/files/audit_report_files/Repo
rt_No_20_of_2018_Compliance_of_the_Fiscal_Responsibility_a
nd_Budget_Management_Act_2003_Department_of_Economic_
Affairs_Minis.pdf. 
12 Report no. 20, Standing Committee on Food, Consumer 
Affairs and Public Distribution: 'Demands for Grants (2018-19), 
Department of Food and Public Distribution', Lok Sabha, March 
2018, 
http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Food,%20Consumer%20Affa
irs%20&%20Public%20Distribution/16_Food_Consumer_Affair
s_And_Public_Distribution_20.pdf. 

13 "Cabinet approves big increase in the authorized capital of 
Food Corporation of India from Rs. 3,500 crore to Rs. 10,000 
crore", Press Information Bureau, Cabinet Committee on 
Economic Affairs, November 27, 2019. 
14 Public Distribution System, Department of Food and Public 
Distribution, https://dfpd.gov.in/public-distribution.htm. 

15 "Nutritional Intake in India 2011-12, NSS 68th Round, National 
Sample Survey Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme 
Implementation, October 2014, 
http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/nss_repo
rt_560_19dec14.pdf.   

16 Volume II, Economic Survey of India 2015-16, 
http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2015-16/echapvol2-05.pdf.   

17 Task Force on Agricultural Development, NITI Aayog, 
http://niti.gov.in/mgov_file/Raising%20Agricultural%20Producti
vity%20and%20Making%20Farming%20Remunerative%20for%
20Farmers.pdf. 

                                                                                                                                                                                     
23 Third Report of the Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution: Demands for Grants 2015-16, Department of Food and Public Distribution, http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Food,%20Consumer%20Affairs%20&%20Public%20Distribution/16_Food_Consumer_Affairs_And_P ublic_Distribution_3.pdf. 24 The Case for Direct Cash Transfers to the Poor, Economic and Political Weekly, April 2008, http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2008_43/15/The_Case_for_Direct_Cash_Transfers_to_the_Poor.pdf. 25 Performance Evaluation of Targeted Public Distribution System, Planning Commission of India, March 2005, http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/peoreport/peo/peo_tpds.pdf. 26 Report of the Expert Group to advise the Ministry of Rural Development in the methodology for conducting the Below Poverty Line (BPL) Census for 11th Five Year Plan, August 2009, http://rural.nic.in/sites/downloads/circular/ReportofExpertGroupChaired- Dr.N.C.Saxena.pdf. 27 Evaluation Study on the Role of Public Distribution System in shaping household and nutritional security in India, NITI Aayog, December 2016, http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/Final%20PDS%20Report-new.pdf. 28 Audit on the Preparedness for Implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013 for the year ended March, 2015, Report No. 54 of 2015, Comptroller and Auditor General of India, http://cag.gov.in/sites/default/files/audit_report_files/Union_Civil_National_Food_Security_Report_54_of_2015.pdf. 29 "Prices, Agriculture and Food Management", Chapter 5, Economic Survey 2015-16, http://unionbudget.nic.in/budget2016-2017/es2015- 16/echapvol2-05.pdf. 30 Working Paper 294, "Leakages from Public Distribution System", January 2015, ICRIER, http://icrier.org/pdf/Working_Paper_294.pdf. http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2011_46/44-45/Revival_of_the_Public_Distribution_System_Evidence_and_Explanations.pdf. 32 The Case for Direct Cash Transfers to the Poor, Economic and Political Weekly, April 2008, http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2008_43/15/The_Case_for_Direct_Cash_Transfers_to_the_Poor.pdf. 33 'Report of the Internal Working Group on Branch Authorisation Policy', Reserve Bank of India, September 2016, https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/PublicationReport/Pdfs/IWG99F12F147B6E4F8DBEE8CEBB8F09F103.PDF. 34 "The Cash Transfer of Food Subsidy Rules, 2015", Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, September 3, 2015, http://dfpd.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/News/32_1_cash.pdf. http://dfpd.nic.in/fgAvAHcAcgBpAHQAZQByAGUAYQBkAGQAYQB0AGEALwBQAG8AcgB0AGEAbAAvAE0AYQBnAGEAegBp AG4AZQAvAEQAbwBjAHUAbQBlAG4AdAAvAA==/1_135_1_Food-Security.pdf. 

ublic_Distribution_2.pdf. http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2017/174131.pdf. http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/11/AU844.pdf.    
                                                                                                                                                                                     
non-commercial purposes in part or in full to any other person with due acknowledgement of PRS Legislative Research ("PRS").  The 

## Annexure

 
2018-19 
Actuals 
2019-20 
Budgeted 
2019-20 
Revised 
2020-21 
Budgeted 
% change in BE 
of 2020-21 over 
RE of 2019-20 
Food subsidy 
1,01,327 
1,84,220 
1,08,688 
1,15,570 
6.3% 
       Subsidy to Food Corporation of India (FCI) 
70,098 
1,51,000 
75,000 
77,983 
4.0% 
       Subsidy to states (decentralised procurement) 
31,029 
33,000 
33,508 
37,337 
11.4% 
       Sugar subsidy payable under PDS 
200 
220 
180 
250 
38.9% 
Assistance to state agencies for intra-state movement of food grains and for margin of fair price shops' dealers 
3,884 
4,102 
1,679 
3,983 
137.2% 
Investment in equity capital of FCI 
500 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
0% 
Assistance to sugar mills for the 2017-18 season 
376 
100 
63 
- 
- 
Assistance to sugar mills for the 2018-19 season 
- 
1,000 
2,000 
200 
-90% 
Assistance to sugar mills for the 2019-20 season 
- 
- 
100 
500 
400% 
Scheme for defraying expenditure towards internal transport, freight, handling and other charges on export 
- 
501 
551 
200 
-63.7% 
Scheme for creation and maintenance of buffer stock of sugar 
200 
350 
550 
200 
-63.6% 
Scheme for extending soft loan to sugar mills 
- 
200 
100 
120 
20% 
Financial assistance to sugar mills for enhancement and augmentation of ethanol production capacity 
- 
100 
50 
50 
0% 
Schemes for development of sugar industries 
443 
351 
221 
172 
-22.2% 
Department 
1,07,078 
1,92,240 
1,15,240 
1,22,235 
6.1% 

Sources:  Demand no. 15, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Expenditure Budget, Union Budget 2020-21; PRS. 

Vegetables & 
Meats, 
eggs, & 
  
Cereals 
Pulses, nuts, 
& oilseeds 
fruits 
Milk & milk 
products 
Miscellaneous 
fish 
Rural 
1993-94 
71.0 
4.9 
2.0 
0.7 
6.2 
15.2 
1999-00 
67.6 
5.5 
2.0 
0.8 
6.2 
17.9 
2004-05 
67.5 
5.0 
2.2 
0.8 
6.4 
18.1 
2009-10 
64.2 
4.5 
1.8 
0.7 
6.8 
22.0 
2011-12 
61.1 
5.2 
1.9 
0.8 
7.1 
23.9 
Urban 
1993-94 
58.5 
6.1 
3.3 
1.0 
8.0 
23.1 
1999-00 
55.1 
6.9 
2.9 
1.1 
8.2 
25.8 
2004-05 
56.1 
6.7 
3.2 
1.1 
8.6 
24.3 
2009-10 
55.0 
5.9 
2.6 
1.0 
9.4 
26.1 
2011-12 
51.6 
6.4 
2.6 
1.1 
9.1 
29.2 

Sources:  Table T18, Nutritional Intake in India, 2011-12, NSSO; PRS. 

Year 
Cereals 
Pulses 
Milk and milk products 
Egg, fish, and meat 
Other food 
Rural 
1993-94 
69.4 
9.8 
8.8 
3.7 
8.4 
1999-00 
67.4 
10.9 
9.2 
4.0 
8.4 
2004-05 
66.4 
9.5 
9.3 
4.0 
10.8 
2009-10 
64.9 
9.1 
10.0 
4.0 
12.0 
2011-12 
62.5 
10.6 
10.6 
4.7 
11.7 
Urban 
1993-94 
59.4 
11.5 
11.7 
5.3 
12.1 
1999-00 
57.0 
13.1 
12.4 
6.0 
11.5 
2004-05 
56.2 
11.0 
12.3 
5.5 
15.0 
2009-10 
56.4 
11.3 
13.8 
5.6 
13.0 
2011-12 
53.7 
12.4 
13.6 
6.4 
13.9 

Sources:  Table T21, Nutritional Intake in India, 2011-12, NSSO; PRS. 

| State/UT          | Total consumption from PDS    | Offtake (2011-12)    | Leakage    | % leakage    |
|-------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------|------------|--------------|
| Andhra Pradesh    | 36.1                          | 40.7                 | 4.6        | 11.3%        |
| Arunachal Pradesh | 0.8                           | 1.0                  | 0.2        | 20.0%        |
| Assam             | 9.5                           | 24.4                 | 14.9       | 61.1%        |
| Bihar             | 11.3                          | 36.2                 | 24.9       | 68.8%        |
| Chhattisgarh      | 16.7                          | 16.7                 | 0.0        | 0.0%         |
| Goa               | 0.4                           | 0.8                  | 0.4        | 50.0%        |
| Gujarat           | 4.4                           | 15.7                 | 11.3       | 72.0%        |
| Haryana           | 2.2                           | 7.3                  | 5.1        | 69.9%        |
| Himachal Pradesh  | 4.9                           | 6.3                  | 1.4        | 22.2%        |
| Jammu and Kashmir | 8.8                           | 9.1                  | 0.3        | 3.3%         |
| Jharkhand         | 3.1                           | 12.4                 | 9.3        | 75.0%        |
| Karnataka         | 16.2                          | 30.1                 | 13.9       | 46.2%        |
| Kerala            | 11.4                          | 20.1                 | 8.7        | 43.3%        |
| Madhya Pradesh    | 15.5                          | 30.7                 | 15.2       | 49.5%        |
| Maharashtra       | 19.3                          | 42.7                 | 23.4       | 54.8%        |
| Manipur           | 0.0                           | 2.0                  | 2.0        | 100.0%       |
| Meghalaya         | 0.8                           | 2.5                  | 1.7        | 68.0%        |
| Mizoram           | 0.9                           | 1.1                  | 0.2        | 18.2%        |
| Nagaland          | 0.1                           | 2.0                  | 1.9        | 95.0%        |
| Odisha            | 15.4                          | 24.4                 | 9.0        | 36.9%        |
| Punjab            | 3.4                           | 8.7                  | 5.3        | 60.9%        |
| Rajasthan         | 10.1                          | 29.8                 | 19.7       | 66.1%        |
| Sikkim            | N/A                           | N/A                  | -          | -            |
| Tamil Nadu        | 39.5                          | 45                   | 5.5        | 12.2%        |
| Tripura           | 2.7                           | 3.3                  | 0.6        | 18.2%        |
| Uttar Pradesh     | 43.2                          | 82.9                 | 39.7       | 47.9%        |
| Uttarakhand       | 4.6                           | 6.6                  | 2.0        | 30.3%        |
| West Bengal       | 13.4                          | 43.9                 | 30.5       | 69.5%        |
| Total             | 295.5                         | 554.5                | 259        | 46.7%        |

Note:  Data from National Sample Survey 2011-12. Sources:  Table 1, Working Paper 294, "Leakages from Public Distribution System", ICRIER, January 2015; PRS. 

| Procurement    | Offtake   |           | Stocks   |       |
|----------------|-----------|-----------|----------|-------|
| Year           |           | % Offtake |          |       |
| Rice           | Wheat     | Total     | Rice     | Wheat |
| 2003-04        | 22.9      | 15.8      | 38.7     | 25.0  |
| 2004-05        | 24.7      | 16.8      | 41.5     | 23.2  |
| 2005-06        | 27.6      | 14.8      | 42.4     | 25.1  |
| 2006-07        | 25.1      | 9.2       | 34.3     | 25.1  |
| 2007-08        | 28.7      | 11.1      | 39.9     | 25.2  |
| 2008-09        | 34.1      | 22.7      | 56.8     | 24.6  |
| 2009-10        | 32.0      | 25.4      | 57.4     | 27.4  |
| 2010-11        | 34.2      | 22.5      | 56.7     | 29.9  |
| 2011-12        | 35.0      | 28.3      | 63.4     | 32.1  |
| 2012-13        | 34.0      | 38.2      | 72.2     | 32.6  |
| 2013-14        | 31.9      | 25.1      | 56.9     | 29.2  |
| 2014-15        | 31.6      | 28.0      | 59.6     | 30.7  |
| 2015-16        | 34.1      | 28.1      | 62.2     | 31.8  |
| 2016-17        | 36.5      | 23.6      | 60.1     | 32.8  |
| 2017-18        | 37.6      | 30.6      | 68.2     | 35.0  |
| 2018-19        | 42.7      | 35.0      | 77.7     | 34.4  |

Sources:  Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy (2019), Reserve Bank of India; PRS. 

 

| Online Allocation of    | Computerisation of    |
|-------------------------|-----------------------|
| State/ UT               |                       |
| Digitisation of         |                       |
| Ration Cards            |                       |
| Aadhaar Seeding         |                       |
| with Ration Cards       | Food grains           |
| % of Fair Price Shops   |                       |
| with Operational ePoS   |                       |
| Andhra Pradesh          |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 100% Implemented        | Implemented           |
| Arunachal Pradesh       |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 57% Implemented         | -                     |
| Assam                   |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 0% Implemented          | -                     |
| Bihar                   |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 78% Implemented         | Implemented           |
| Chhattisgarh            |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 98% Implemented         | Implemented           |
| Goa                     |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 98% Implemented         | Implemented           |
| Gujarat                 |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 99% Implemented         | Implemented           |
| Haryana                 |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 100% Implemented        | Implemented           |
| Himachal Pradesh        |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 100% Implemented        | Implemented           |
| Jammu and Kashmir       |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 82% Implemented         | -                     |
| Jharkhand               |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 95% Implemented         | Implemented           |
| Karnataka               |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 100% Implemented        | Implemented           |
| Kerala                  |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 99% Implemented         | Implemented           |
| Madhya Pradesh          |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 90% Implemented         | Implemented           |
| Maharashtra             |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 97% Implemented         | Implemented           |
| Manipur                 |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 79% Implemented         | -                     |
| Meghalaya               |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 0% Implemented          | -                     |
| Mizoram                 |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 93% Implemented         | -                     |
| Nagaland                |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 65% Implemented         | -                     |
| Odisha                  |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 96% Implemented         | Implemented           |
| Punjab                  |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 99% Implemented         | Implemented           |
| Rajasthan               |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 96% Implemented         | Implemented           |
| Sikkim                  |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 90% Implemented         | Implemented           |
| Tamil Nadu              |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 100% Implemented        | Implemented           |
| Telangana               |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 99% Implemented         | Implemented           |
| Tripura                 |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 100% Implemented        | Implemented           |
| Uttar Pradesh           |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 100% Implemented        | Implemented           |
| Uttarakhand             |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 93% Implemented         | Implemented           |
| West Bengal             |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 64% Implemented         | Implemented           |
| Andaman and Nicobar     |                       |
| Islands                 |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 97% Implemented         | Implemented           |
| Chandigarh              |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 100% NA                 | NA                    |
| Dadra and Nagar Haveli  |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 100% Implemented        | Implemented           |
| Daman and Diu           |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 100% Implemented        | Implemented           |
| Delhi                   |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 100% Implemented        | Implemented           |
| Lakshadweep             |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 100% Implemented        | NA                    |
| Puducherry              |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 100% NA                 | NA                    |
| Total                   |                       |
| 100%                    |                       |
| 88%                     | 34                    |

Sources:  Report no. 2, Standing Committee of Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution, Lok Sabha, December 10, 2019; PRS  

| Year    | Paddy (common)    | % increase over last year    | Wheat    | % increase over last year    |
|---------|-------------------|------------------------------|----------|------------------------------|
| 2009-10 | 1,000             | 17.6%                        | 1,100    | 1.9%                         |
| 2010-11 | 1,000             | 0.0%                         | 1,120    | 1.8%                         |
| 2011-12 | 1,080             | 8.0%                         | 1,285    | 14.7%                        |
| 2012-13 | 1,250             | 15.7%                        | 1,350    | 5.1%                         |
| 2013-14 | 1,310             | 4.8%                         | 1,400    | 3.7%                         |
| 2014-15 | 1,360             | 3.8%                         | 1,450    | 3.6%                         |
| 2015-16 | 1,410             | 3.7%                         | 1,525    | 5.2%                         |
| 2016-17 | 1,470             | 4.3%                         | 1,625    | 6.6%                         |
| 2017-18 | 1,550             | 5.4%                         | 1,735    | 6.8%                         |
| 2018-19 | 1,750             | 12.9%                        | 1,840    | 6.1%                         |
| 2019-20 | 1,815             | 3.7%                         | 1,925    | 4.9%                         |

   Sources:  Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare; PRS. 

| States/UTs                | 2016      | 2017      | 2018     | State-wise Total    |
|---------------------------|-----------|-----------|----------|---------------------|
| Andhra Pradesh            | 4,75,023  | 5,449     | -        | 4,80,472            |
| Andaman & Nicobar Islands | -         | -         | -        | 0                   |
| Arunachal Pradesh         | 4,396     | 56        | -        | 4,452               |
| Assam                     | 1,08,681  | 42,077    | 1,35,250 | 2,86,008            |
| Bihar                     | 6,291     | -         | -        | 6,291               |
| Chandigarh                | -         | 88        | -        | 88                  |
| Chhattisgarh              | 1,50,000  | 1,50,000  | -        | 3,00,000            |
| Dadra & Nagar Haveli      | 549       | -         | -        | 549                 |
| Daman & Diu               | 101       | 272       | 4,898    | 5,271               |
| Delhi                     | 22,696    | 3,969     | 486      | 27,151              |
| Goa                       | 10,115    | -         | -        | 10,115              |
| Gujarat                   | 22,119    | 18,965    | 95,659   | 1,36,743            |
| Haryana                   | 19,648    | 29,686    | 2,91,926 | 3,41,260            |
| Himachal Pradesh          | 1,148     | 172       | 56,858   | 58,178              |
| Jammu and Kashmir         | 50,709    | 664       | -        | 51,373              |
| Jharkhand                 | 4,46,025  | -         | -        | 4,46,025            |
| Karnataka                 | 1,44,432  | 3,26,382  | 4,572    | 4,75,386            |
| Kerala                    | -         | -         | 3,314    | 3,314               |
| Lakshadweep               | 442       | -         | -        | 442                 |
| Madhya Pradesh            | 3,89,124  | 1,84,673  | -        | 5,73,797            |
| Maharashtra               | 11,55,908 | -         | -        | 11,55,908           |
| Manipur                   | -         | 336       | -        | 336                 |
| Meghalaya                 | -         | -         | 370      | 370                 |
| Mizoram                   | 101       | 559       | -        | 660                 |
| Nagaland                  | -         | 8,521     | -        | 8,521               |
| Odisha                    | 6,50,471  | 35,740    | -        | 6,86,211            |
| Puducherry                | 9,886     | -         | -        | 9,886               |
| Punjab                    | -         | 69,945    | 34,972   | 1,04,917            |
| Rajasthan                 | 13,71,230 | 73,110    | 8,016    | 14,52,356           |
| Sikkim                    | 11,714    | 1,126     | -        | 12,840              |
| Tamil Nadu                | 84,470    | 9,089     | -        | 93,559              |
| Telangana                 | 5,21,790  | -         | -        | 5,21,790            |
| Tripura                   | 92,728    | -         | -        | 92,728              |
| Uttar Pradesh             | 25,86,541 | 44,41,748 | -        | 70,28,289           |
| Uttarakhand               | 89,984    | 3,18,718  | 1,26,268 | 5,34,970            |
| West Bengal               |           |           |          |                     |
| $                         |           |           |          |                     |
|                           | -         | -         | -        | 0                   |
| Total                     | 84,26,322 | 57,21,345 | 7,62,589 | 1,49,10,256         |

Note: *Cards deleted due to detection of ghost/fraudulent/duplicate/ineligible/migration /deaths etc. during the process of digitisation, deduplication, Aadhaar seeding in run-up /implementation of National Food Security Act.  $West Bengal has individual Ration Cards system. Sources: Second Report, Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution (2019-20); PRS. 

| State          | 2016-17 & Earlier    |   2017-18  | 2018-19    | Total Arrears    |
|----------------|----------------------|------------|------------|------------------|
| Andhra Pradesh | 1                    |         5  | 132        | 138              |
| Bihar          | 39                   |         8  | 478        | 524              |
| Chhattisgarh   | 0                    |         2  | 39         | 41               |
| Goa            | 0                    |         0  | 5          | 5                |
| Gujarat        | 35                   |         2  | 804        | 841              |
| Haryana        | 0                    |         0  | 80         | 80               |
| Karnataka      | 33                   |         0  | 225        | 258              |
| Madhya Pradesh | 8                    |         8  | 9          | 25               |
| Maharashtra    | 174                  |        62  | 396        | 632              |
| Odisha         | 3                    |         0  | 19         | 21               |
| Puducherry     | 22                   |         0  | 0          | 22               |
| Punjab         | 0                    |        26  | 589        | 615              |
| Rajasthan      | 0                    |         0  | 0          | 0                |
| Tamil Nadu     | 1,529                |        65  | 346        | 1,940            |
| Telangana      | 0                    |         0  | 46         | 46               |
| Uttar Pradesh  | 144                  |        41  | 5,990      | 6,174            |
| Uttarakhand    | 25                   |       109  | 286        | 420              |
| West Bengal    | 0                    |         0  | 0          | 0                |
| Total          | 2,014                |       326  | 9,444      | 11,784           |

Sources: Second Report, Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution (2019-20); PRS. 