
## Demand For Grants 2018-19 Analysis Food And Public Distribution

The Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution has two Departments: (i) Food and Public Distribution, and (ii) Consumer Affairs. The Ministry received the second highest budgetary allocation by the central government among all ministries.   
Department of Consumer Affairs is responsible for spreading awareness among consumers about their rights, protecting their interests and preventing black marketing.1  In 2018-19, the Department has been allocated Rs 1,785 core, which is 52% lower than the revised estimates of 2017-18.2 This note examines the allocations for the Department of Food and Public Distribution.  It also looks at broad issues in the sector, along with key recommendations and observations made by expert committees. 

## Overview Of Finances Budget Estimates 2018-19 (Details In Annexure)

% change 
in 2018-19 
Department 
2016-17 
Actuals 
2017-18 
Revised 
2018-19 
Budgeted 
over 
2017-18 
Consumer Affairs 
7,254 
3,716 
1,785 
-52% 
Food & Public Distribution 
1,15,145 
1,45,892 
1,74,159 
19.4% 
Total 
1,22,399 
1,49,608 
1,75,944 
17.6% 

Sources: Expenditure Budget, Union Budget 2018-19; PRS.   
Department of Food and Public Distribution is responsible for ensuring food security through procurement, storage and distribution of food grains.3  The Food Corporation of India (FCI) is responsible for some of these functions.4  In 2018- 19, the Department has been allocated Rs 1,74,159 crore, which is 99% of the Ministry's allocation.2 Allocation to this Department accounts for 7.1% of the central government's budgeted expenditure. Food subsidy has been the largest component of the Department's expenditure (96% in 2018-19).2  This subsidy is given to FCI under the National Food Security Act, 2013 for the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) or to states for the decentralised procurement of food grains.  The National Food Security Act, 2013 is mandated to cover 75% of the population from rural areas and 50% from urban areas, and currently covers 81 crore people.5,6   Figure 1 shows the total allocation for the Department over the past 10 years and its corresponding expenditure on food subsidy.   
Sources: Expenditure Budget, Union Budgets 2007-08 to 2018- 19; PRS.  

As seen in Figure 2, over the last 10 years, the 
actual expenditure of the Department has been 
higher than the budget estimates for that year.  
However, this trend reversed in 2016-17 where the 
actual expenditure was 18% lower than the budget 
estimates. 

## Trends In Expenditure On Food Subsidy

Food subsidy is the cost incurred and subsequently 
reimbursed by the Ministry for the procurement, 
storage and distribution of food grains in the 
country.  This subsidy is the difference between the 
cost of procuring food grains and the price at which 
they are given to the beneficiaries (known as 
Central Issue Price). 

As seen in Table 2, expenditure on food subsidy is 
classified under three heads: (i) subsidy to FCI for 
TPDS, (ii) subsidy to states for decentralised 
procurement, and (iii) sugar subsidy.  

% change in 
2018-19 over 
Subsidy 
2016-17  
Actuals 
2017-18  
Revised 
2018-19 
Budgeted 
2017-18 
Subsidy to FCI on food grains 
78,335  1,01,982  1,38,123  
35.4% 
Subsidy to states on DCP 
27,338  
8,000  
31,000  
-18.4% 
Sugar subsidy 
4,500  
300  
200  
-33.3% 
Total 
1,10,173  1,40,282  1,69,323  
20.7% 

Sources: Demand for Grants 2018-19, Department of Food and Public Distribution; PRS.  
Sugar Industry:  In 2018-19, Rs 200 crore has been allocated for the development of the sugar industry, which is 33% lower than the revised estimates of 2017-18.  The allocated money is used to provide financial assistance to the sugar industry and facilitate payment to sugar cane farmers. Note that as of March 2017, Rs 11,759 crore was outstanding against sugar mills for payment of dues to farmers.7  State-wise details of the arrears can be found in Table 16 of the Annexure. The expenditure on food subsidy has increased four-fold over the past 10 years, from Rs 43,751 crore in 2008-09 to Rs 1,69,323 crore in 2018-19. The Standing Committee on Food and Public Distribution noted that the reasons for the increase in food subsidy include an increase in the procurement cost of food grains, non-revision of the central issue price since 2002, and the implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013 in all states, among others.8  Table 3 looks at the expenditure on food subsidy over the last 10 years, and its share in the total Union Budget. 

Year 
Food 
subsidy 
% increase over 
previous year 
% of total 
budget 
2008-09 
43,751 
40% 
4.9% 
2009-10 
58,443 
34% 
7.8% 
2010-11 
63,844 
9% 
5.3% 
2011-12 
72,822 
14% 
5.6% 
2012-13 
85,000 
17% 
6.0% 
2013-14 
92,000 
8% 
5.9% 
2014-15 
1,17,671 
28% 
7.1% 
2015-16 
1,39,419 
18% 
7.8% 
2016-17 
1,10,173 
-21% 
5.6% 
2017-18 
1,40,282 
27% 
6.3% 
2018-19 
1,69,323 
21% 
6.9% 

Note: Figures for 2017-18 are revised estimates; and for 2018- 19 are budget estimate. Sources:  Expenditure Budget, Union Budgets 2008-09 to 2018- 19); PRS. 

## Issues

In this section, we examine some issues with the 
delivery of food subsidy, current challenges in PDS 
and discuss alternative subsidy systems proposed 
by various committees and experts over the years.   

## Provision Of Food Subsidy

Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) 
sought to provide food security to people below the 
poverty line.  Over the years, while the expenditure 
on food subsidy has increased, the ratio of people 
below the poverty line has reduced. (Table 4) 

| Year    | Poverty Ratio (%)    |   No. of Poor (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 to 2004 have been computed using the 
Lakdawala Methodology, and figures for 2011-12 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 24% in 1990 to 15% in 2014 (Table 5). 

| Number of            | Proportion of    |
|----------------------|------------------|
| Year                 | undernourished   |
| persons (crores)     |                  |
| undernourished in    |                  |
| total population (%) |                  |
| 1990-92              | 21               |
| 2000-02              | 19               |
| 2005-07              | 23               |
| 2010-12              | 19               |
| 2014-15*             | 20               |

*Provisional data. Sources: Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2015: Table 5.14, Chapter 5, 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.  Further, 
Antyodaya Anna Yojana households which 
constitute the poorest of the poor, are entitled to 35 
kg per household per month.   

As can be seen in Figure 3 and Figure 4, there has 
been a change in the pattern of nutritional intake 
among people both in rural and urban areas.  

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.9   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.9 The share of cereals in food consumption has reduced by 7% in rural areas and 5% in urban areas, whereas that of milk, eggs, fish and meat has increased.9  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 states that the central government and state governments should undertake steps to diversify commodities distributed under TPDS.5 More details related to the intake of calorie and nutrients by the rural and urban population can be found in Table 9 and Table 10 of the Annexure. Imbalance in farm production:  Minimum Support Price (MSP) is the price at which the government purchases a farmer's produce. Typically, the MSP is higher than the market price and seeks to incentivise farmers to grow crops on which the support is offered.  Food grains for PDS are usually procured at the MSP.  As a result, procurement under MSP has been restricted to wheat and paddy (rice) in a few states, to maintain a buffer stock for release under PDS.10,11   

It has been argued that 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  The figure below shows the 
share of crop produce procured in 2016-17. 

Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; PRS. 

## Revision Of Central Issue Price (Cip)

Under the National Food Security Act, 2013, 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: TPDS, Department of Food and Public Distribution. 

In comparison to the CIP, the economic cost 
(including procurement, stocking, distribution) for 
wheat is Rs 24/kg and for rice is Rs 33/kg as of 
February 2018.12  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 (approximately Rs 11/Kg) in 
2001-02 to Rs 3,310 /quintal in 2018-19, and of 
wheat, from Rs 853/quintal to Rs 2,446/quintal 
over the same period, the CIP has not been 
revised.12  This has led to an increasing gap 
between the economic cost and CIP, leading to an 
increase in expenditure on food subsidy.19  Trends 
in economic cost, CIP and subsidies for wheat and 
rice can be found in Figure 6 and Figure 7 below. 

In 2017-18, 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.7  Details related to the procurement of food grains, off-take and stock can be found in of the Annexure. 

## Delivery Of Food Subsidy

Leakages in PDS:  Leakages refer to food grains not reaching intended beneficiaries.  According to 2011 data, leakages in PDS were estimated to be 46.7% (see Table 11).4,13 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.14,15  Studies have shown that targeting mechanisms such as TPDS are prone to large exclusion and inclusion errors.16   
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.  As seen in Figure 8, exclusion errors declined from 55% in 2004-05 to 41% in 2011-12.   
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, the non-
poor are still identified as poor by the government 
thus allowing them to continue using their PDS 
cards.17  

 
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 
identification of beneficiaries.  In 2016, the 
Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) found that 
this process had not been completed by the states, 
and 49% of the beneficiaries were yet to be 
identified.18   

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.4,38   

The NFSA states that the centre and states should 
introduce schemes for cash transfers to 
beneficiaries.5  Various experts and bodies have 
also suggested replacing TPDS with a Direct 
Benefit Transfer (DBT) system.19,20  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.21,22 

 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.5  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.21,22  

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 also consider the low penetration and 
access to banking in rural areas.23 

In 2015, the Department released two notifications: The Cash Transfer of Food Subsidy Rules and The Food Security (Assistance to State Governments) Rules.25,26   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. 

## Evaluation Report On Dbt In Food By Niti Aayog, July 2017 24

Since September 2015, DBT for food subsidy is 
being implemented in Puducherry, Chandigarh, and 
Dadra and Nagar Haveli.27  In July 2017, Niti 
Aayog conducted an evaluation study of DBT in the 
three union territories.  Key findings of the study 
include: 
- On average, only two thirds of beneficiaries 

confirmed receiving the DBT benefits in their accounts. (67% in Chandigarh, 67% in 
Puducherry and 65% in Dadra and Nagar Haveli) 
- On average, it costs beneficiaries more (in time 
and money) to access and redeem DBT amount than in collecting food rations from Fair Price Shops. 

- Adding the time costs and expenses incurred in 
travel with the additional out of pocket spending on rations, 24% of beneficiaries cited DBT entitlement insufficiency as the biggest issue they faced. 
So far, more than 2.9 lakh (54%) Fair Price Shops have been automated across the country.27  Details regarding the status of computerisation of PDS can be found in Table  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.28  

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 Committee 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.28  As 
of December 2017, 119 crore Aadhaar cards had 
been issued, covering 98% of the population.29 

In February 2017, the Ministry made it mandatory 
for beneficiaries under NFSA to use Aadhaar as 
proof of identification for receiving food grains.30  
This is expected to facilitate the removal of bogus 
ration cards, check leakages and ensure better 
delivery of food grains.4,31,32   

Note that as of July 2017, while 100% ration cards 
had been digitised, the seeding of these cards with 
Aadhaar was at 79%.33   For details related to 
deleted ration cards due to detection of bogus, fake, 
and duplicate cards, see Table 13 of the Annexure. 

## 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 2018-19, 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.34  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.35  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 godown 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).23  

 
As seen in Figure , 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.23  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.36   
                                                           
Affairs, Department of Consumer Affairs, http://consumeraffairs.nic.in/forms/contentpage.aspx?lid=204.   
2 Expenditure Budget, Union Budget 2018-19, http://unionbudget.nic.in/ub2018-19/eb/allsbe.pdf. 3 Department of Food and Public Distribution, http://dfpd.nic.in/. and Restructuring of Food Corporation of India, January 2015, http://www.fci.gov.in/app2/webroot/upload/News/Report%20of %20the%20High%20Level%20Committee%20on%20Reorienti ng%20the%20Role%20and%20Restructuring%20of%20FCI_E nglish_1.pdf. in-pdf/202013.pdf. Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on February 6, 2018, Affairs and Public Distribution: Demands for Grants 2017-18, airs%20&%20Public%20Distribution/16_Food_Consumer_Affa irs_And_Public_Distribution_15.pdf. 

8 18th Report of the Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution: Demands for Grants 2017-18, Department of Food and Public Distribution, http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Food,%20Consumer%20Aff

The Standing Committee on Food, Consumer 
Affairs and Public Distribution has recommended 
increasing the procurement undertaken by states, 
and reducing the expenditure on centralised 
procurement by the FCI.7  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 2017, only 
17 states have adopted decentralised procurement.37 

Note that during 2018-19, while the food subsidy 
given to FCI has increased by 35% over the revised 
estimates of 2017-18, the allocation to states for 
DCP reduced by 18%.2 

Fair Price Shops:  It has been observed by various 
experts and the Ministry that the margins on which 
the Fair Price Shops operate are low.38  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, states have 
taken various steps: 

- 
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. 

airs%20&%20Public%20Distribution/16_Food_Consumer_Affa
irs_And_Public_Distribution_18.pdf. 
9 "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_rep
ort_560_19dec14.pdf.   

10 Volume II, Economic Survey of India 2015-16, 
http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2015-16/echapvol2-05.pdf.   
11 Task Force on Agricultural Development, NITI Aayog, 
http://niti.gov.in/mgov_file/Raising%20Agricultural%20Product
ivity%20and%20Making%20Farming%20Remunerative%20for
%20Farmers.pdf. 
12 Economic Cost, Food Corporation of India (last accessed on 
February 9, 2018), http://fci.gov.in/finances.php?view=23.   
13 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%20Aff
airs%20&%20Public%20Distribution/16_Food_Consumer_Affa
irs_And_Public_Distribution_3.pdf.   

14 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.   
15 Performance Evaluation of Targeted Public Distribution 
System, Planning Commission of India, March 2005, 
http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/peoreport/peo/peo_tpd
s.pdf.   

                                                                                    
16 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/ReportofExpertGroup Chaired-Dr.N.C.Saxena.pdf. 

17 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. 

18 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_Civ il_National_Food_Security_Report_54_of_2015.pdf. 19 "Prices, Agriculture and Food Management", Chapter 5, Economic Survey 2015-16, http://unionbudget.nic.in/budget2016-2017/es2015- 16/echapvol2-05.pdf.  . 20 Working Paper 294, "Leakages from Public Distribution System", January 2015, ICRIER, http://icrier.org/pdf/Working_Paper_294.pdf. 21 Revival of the Public Distribution System: Evidence and Explanations, The Economic and Political Weekly, November 5, 2011, http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2011_46/44- 45/Revival_of_the_Public_Distribution_System_Evidence_and_
Explanations.pdf.   
22 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. 

23 'Report of the Internal Working Group on Branch Authorisation Policy', Reserve Bank of India, September 2016, https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/PublicationReport/Pdfs/IWG99F 12F147B6E4F8DBEE8CEBB8F09F103.PDF. 24 Evaluation Report on the Direct Benefits Transfer in Food, Niti Aayog, July 2017, http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/DBT%20Consolidated%20
Narrative%20Report.pdf. 

25 "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. 26 The Food Security (Assistance to States) Rules, 2015, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, August 17, 2015, http://dfpd.nic.in/fgAvAHcAcgBpAHQAZQByAGUAYQBkA GQAYQB0AGEALwBQAG8AcgB0AGEAbAAvAE0AYQBn AGEAegBpAG4AZQAvAEQAbwBjAHUAbQBlAG4AdAAvA
A==/1_135_1_Food-Security.pdf. 

27 Unstarred Question No. 604, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on February 6, 2018, http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/14/AU607.pdf. 

28 Report of the High Level Committee on Reorienting the Role and Restructuring of Food Corporation of India, January 2015, http://www.fci.gov.in/app2/webroot/upload/News/Report%20of %20the%20High%20Level%20Committee%20on%20Reorienti ng%20the%20Role%20and%20Restructuring%20of%20FCI_E nglish_1.pdf. 29 Key Achievements 2017, Ministry of Electronics and IT, Press Information Bureau, December 29, 2017. 30 S.O. 371 (E), Gazette of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, February 8, 2017, http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2017/174131.pdf. 31 Unstarred Question No. 844, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on February 7, 2017, http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/11/AU844.pdf. 32 "Envisioning a role for Aadhaar in the Public Distribution System", Unique Identification Authority of India, Planning 
 

Commission, June 2010, http://uidai.gov.in/UID_PDF/Working_Papers/Circulated_Aadh aar_PDS_Note.pdf.   
33 Unstarred Q. No. 1464, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer 
Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on July 24, 2017, 
http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/11/AU844.pdf.    
34Unstarred Question No. 549, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on February 6, 2018, http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/14/AU549.pdf. 
35 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_Civ
il_National_Food_Security_Report_54_of_2015.pdf.   
36 Decentralised Procurement Scheme, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, http://dfpd.nic.in/decentralizedprocurement.htm.   
37 Unstarred Question No. 511, Lok Sabha, Ministry of 
Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on December 19, 2017,  
http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/13/AU511.pdf 
38 Newsletter of the Department of Food and Public Distribution, Jan-March, 2015, http://dfpd.nic.in/writereaddata/images/pdf/Final_English_versi on_of_newsletter_May_29_2015.pdf.   

DISCLAIMER: This document is being furnished to you for 
your information.  You may choose to reproduce or redistribute 
this report for non-commercial purposes in part or in full to any 
other person with due acknowledgement of PRS Legislative 
Research ("PRS").  The opinions expressed herein are entirely 
those of the author(s).  PRS makes every effort to use reliable 
and comprehensive information, but PRS does not represent that 
the contents of the report are accurate or complete.  PRS is an 
independent, not-for-profit group.  This document has been 
prepared without regard to the objectives or opinions of those 
who may receive it. 

 

## Annexure Detailed Expenditure Table

Table  provides an overview of expenditure on the major schemes of the Ministry, provided in the Demands for Grants (2018-19). In addition, major shifts in the budgetary allocation are shown in the last two columns.   

% increase in 
Budget  
Budget  
Major Heads 
Actual  
2018-19 (BE) over 
Increase 
2016-2017 
2017-2018 
Revised  
2017-2018 
2018-2019 
2017-18 (RE) 
Secretariat 
50  
55  
65  
64  
-2% 
1  
National Sugar Institute, Kanpur 
19  
21  
20  
24  
15% 
3  
Other Establishment Expenditure of Food, Storage and Warehousing 
17  
19  
18  
19  
5% 
1  
Food Subsidy 
1,10,173  
1,45,339  
1,40,282  
1,69,323  
21% 
29,041  
Of which: 

          -    
Food Subsidy to FCI under NFSA 
78,335  
1,07,139  
1,01,982  
1,38,123  
35% 
36,141  
Food Subsidy for DCP of Food grains under NFSA 
27,338  
38,000  
38,000  
31,000  
-18% 
7,000  
Sugar Subsidy payable under PDS 
4,500  
200  
300  
200  
-33% 
100  
2,500  
4,500  
4,500  
4,000  
-11% 
500  
Assistance to State Agencies for intrastate movement of food grains and FPS dealers margin under NFSA Development of Sugar Industry 
1,672  
496  
918  
611  
-33% 
307  
Strengthening of PDS Operations 
57  
 -  
30  
41  
39% 
12  
Storage and Godowns 
12  
60  
53  
60  
14% 
7  
Warehousing Development and Regulatory Authority 
15  
15  
7  
8  
21% 
1  
Other 
589  
               -    
0  
10  
 
 
Total 
1,15,145  
1,50,505  
1,45,892  
1,74,159  
19% 
28,267  

Sources: Expenditure Budget, Vol. 2, Union Budget 2018-19; PRS.   

| Vegetables &       | Miscellaneous    |
|--------------------|------------------|
|                    |                  |
| Cereals            |                  |
| Pulses, nuts       |                  |
| & oilseeds         | fruits           |
| Meats, eggs & fish |                  |
| Milk & milk        |                  |
| products           | food             |
| Rural              |                  |
|                    |                  |
| 1993-94            |                  |
| 71.0               | 4.9              |
| 1999-00            |                  |
| 67.6               | 5.5              |
| 2004-05            |                  |
| 67.5               | 5.0              |
| 2009-10            |                  |
| 64.2               | 4.5              |
| 2011-12            |                  |
| 61.1               | 5.2              |
| Urban              |                  |
|                    |                  |
| 1993-94            |                  |
| 58.5               | 6.1              |
| 1999-00            |                  |
| 55.1               | 6.9              |
| 2004-05            |                  |
| 56.1               | 6.7              |
| 2009-10            |                  |
| 55.0               | 5.9              |
| 2011-12            |                  |
| 51.6               | 6.4              |

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

 
Year 
Cereals 
Pulses 
Milk & milk products 
Egg, fish & 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 is from National Sample Survey, 2011-12. Sources: Table 1, Working Paper 294, "Leakages from Public Distribution System", ICRIER, January 2015; PRS.  

|             | Year    |       |
|-------------|---------|-------|
| Procurement | Offtake |       |
| % Offtake   |         |       |
| Stocks      |         |       |
| Rice        | Wheat   | Total |
| 2007-08     | 28.7    | 11.1  |
| 2008-09     | 34.1    | 22.7  |
| 2009-10     | 32.0    | 25.4  |
| 2010-11     | 34.2    | 22.5  |
| 2011-12     | 35.0    | 28.3  |
| 2012-13     | 34.0    | 38.2  |
| 2013-14     | 31.9    | 25.1  |
| 2014-15     | 31.6    | 28.0  |
| 2015-16     | 34.1    | 28.1  |
| 2016-17     | 36.5    | 23.6  |
| 2017-18     | 6.2     | 30.1  |

Notes: Figures for stock as of August 2017.  Offtake and stock numbers up to May 2017. Sources: Reserve Bank of India; PRS. 

Online 
Online Allocation 
State/UT 
Digitisation of 
Ration Cards 
Aadhaar Seeding 
in Ration Cards 
of Food grains 
Computerization 
of Supply-chain 
Transpare ncy Portal 
Grievance 
Redressal 
Andhra Pradesh 
100% 
100% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Arunachal Pradesh 
100% 
45% - 
- 
Yes 
- 
Assam 
100% 
0% Implemented 
- 
Yes 
Yes 
Bihar 
100% 
69% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Chandigarh 
100% 
100% NA 
NA 
Yes 
Yes 
Chhattisgarh 
100% 
100% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Goa 
100% 
91% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Gujarat 
100% 
95% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Haryana 
100% 
86% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Himachal Pradesh 
100% 
91% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Jammu and Kashmir 
100% 
45% Up to TSOs 
- 
Yes 
- 
Jharkhand 
100% 
97% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Karnataka 
100% 
100% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Kerala 
100% 
98% Implemented 
- 
Yes 
Yes 
Madhya Pradesh 
100% 
91% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Maharashtra 
100% 
87% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Manipur 
100% 
22% Partial 
- 
Yes 
Yes 
Meghalaya 
100% 
0% - 
- 
Yes 
Yes 
Mizoram 
100% 
45% Implemented 
- 
Yes 
Yes 
Nagaland 
100% 
7% - 
- 
Yes 
Yes 
Odisha 
100% 
88% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Punjab 
100% 
97% Implemented 
- 
Yes 
Yes 
Rajasthan 
100% 
95% Implemented 
- 
Yes 
Yes 
Sikkim 
100% 
82% Implemented 
- 
Yes 
Yes 
Tamil Nadu 
100% 
100% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Telangana 
100% 
100% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Tripura 
100% 
98% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Uttar Pradesh 
100% 
77% Implemented 
- 
Yes 
Yes 
Uttarakhand 
100% 
90% Implemented 
- 
Yes 
Yes 
West Bengal 
100% 
62% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Andaman & Nicobar Islands 
100% 
100% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Dadra and Nagar Haveli 
100% 
96% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Daman and Diu 
100% 
100% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Delhi 
100% 
100% Implemented 
Implemented 
Yes 
Yes 
Lakshadweep 
100% 
98% - 
NA 
Yes 
Yes 
Puducherry 
100% 
100% NA 
NA 
Yes 
Yes 
Total 
100% 
79% 
30* 
20 
36 
34 

Sources: Unstarred Q. No. 1464, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on July 24, 2017; PRS  

| Crop    | Paddy Common    | % increase over last year    | Wheat    | % increase over last year    |
|---------|-----------------|------------------------------|----------|------------------------------|
| 2006-07 | 580             | 1.8%                         | 750      | 15.4%                        |
| 2007-08 | 645             | 11.2%                        | 1,000    | 33.3%                        |
| 2008-09 | 850             | 31.8%                        | 1,080    | 8.0%                         |
| 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    | 6.3%                         |

Note: Data includes bonus announced for the particular crop. Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation; CCEA; PRS.   

| States/UTs                  |
|-----------------------------|
| Andhra Pradesh              |
| 11,55,661                   |
| Arunachal Pradesh           |
| 19,561                      |
| Assam                       |
| 1,29,243                    |
| Bihar                       |
| 41,369                      |
| Chandigarh                  |
| -                           |
| Chhattisgarh                |
| 12,38,000                   |
| Goa                         |
| 1,57,461                    |
| Gujarat                     |
| 1,60,685                    |
| Haryana                     |
| 1,88,425                    |
| Himachal Pradesh            |
| 3,260                       |
| Jammu and Kashmir           |
| 55,344                      |
| Jharkhand                   |
| 4,53,958                    |
| Karnataka                   |
| 27,49,532                   |
| Kerala                      |
| -                           |
| Madhya Pradesh              |
| 4,18,509                    |
| Maharashtra                 |
| 21,62,391                   |
| Manipur                     |
| 336                         |
| Meghalaya                   |
| -                           |
| Mizoram                     |
| 1,503                       |
| Nagaland                    |
| 3,247                       |
| Odisha                      |
| 6,86,211                    |
| Punjab                      |
| 1,01,249                    |
| Rajasthan                   |
| 14,66,629                   |
| Sikkim                      |
| 12,840                      |
| Tamil Nadu                  |
| 4,22,746                    |
| Telangana                   |
| 20,97,564                   |
| Tripura                     |
| 1,76,986                    |
| Uttar Pradesh               |
| 68,80,999                   |
| Uttarakhand                 |
| -                           |
| West Bengal                 |
| 66,13,961                   |
| Andaman and Nicobar Islands |
| 37                          |
| Dadra and Nagar Haveli      |
| 549                         |
| Daman and Diu               |
| 631                         |
| Delhi                       |
| 64,090                      |
| Lakshadweep                 |
| 1,390                       |
| Puducherry                  |
| 95,393                      |
| Total                       |
| 2,75,59,760                 |

Sources: Unstarred Q. No. 632, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on Feb 6, 2018; PRS. 

State 
Cane Price Arrears 2016-17 
Cane Price Arrears 2015-16 
Cane Price Arrears For 2014-15 
Cane Price Arrears For 2013-14 & Earlier 
Total Cane Price Arrears 
Andhra Pradesh 
 215  
 22  
 16  
 -    
 253  
Bihar 
 239  
 2  
 3  
 39  
 283  
Chhattisgarh 
 24  
 1  
 -    
 -    
 25  
Goa 
 2  
 -    
 -    
 -    
 2  
Gujarat 
 455  
 14  
 -    
 14  
 482  
Haryana 
 308  
 -    
 -    
 -    
 308  
Karnataka 
 911  
 28  
 -    
 86  
 1,024  
Madhya Pradesh 
 208  
 4  
 -    
 13  
 225  
Maharashtra 
 363  
 70  
 140  
 69  
 642  
Odisha 
 36  
 -    
 -    
 3  
 39  
Puducherry 
 -    
 8  
 -    
 4  
 12  
Punjab 
 322  
 -    
 -    
 -    
 322  
Tamil Nadu 
 617  
 677  
 277  
 273  
 1,845  
Telangana 
 115  
 2  
 -    
 -    
 117  
Uttar Pradesh 
 5,305  
 368  
 45  
 108  
 5,826  
Uttarakhand 
 284  
 45  
 -    
 25  
 354  
West Bengal 
 -    
 -    
 1  
 -    
 1  
Total 
 9,403  
 1,241  
 482  
 633  
 11,759  

Sources:  Report of the Standing Committee on Food and Public Distribution on Demand for Grants 2017-18; PRS. 