
## Demand For Grants 2017-18 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. This note examines the allocations for the Department of Food and Public Distribution. 

## Overview Of Finances Budget Estimates 2017-18 (Details In Annexure)

% change 
in 2017-18 
Department 
2015-16 
Actuals 
2016-17 
Revised 
2017-18 
Budgeted 
over 
2016-17 
Food & Public Distribution 
1,40,521 
1,40,178 
1,50,505 
7.4% 
Consumer Affairs 
290 
3,810 
3,727 
-2.2% 
Total 
1,40,810 
1,43,988 
1,54,232 
7.1% 

Sources: Expenditure Budget, Union Budget 2017-18; PRS.   
Department of Food and Public Distribution is responsible for ensuring food security through procurement, storage and distribution of food grains.1  The Food Corporation of India (FCI) is responsible for some of these functions.2  In 2017- 18, the Department has been allocated Rs 1,50,505 crore, which is 98% of the Ministry's allocation.3 Allocation to this Department accounts for 7.6% of the central government's budgeted expenditure.   
Department of Consumer Affairs is responsible for spreading awareness among consumers about their rights, protecting their interests and preventing black marketing.4  In 2017-18, the Department has been allocated Rs 3.727 core, which is 2% of the Ministry's allocation.3 As seen in Table 2, food subsidy has been the largest component of the Department's expenditure (94% in 2017-18), and expenditure on food subsidy has increased six-fold over the past 10 years.  Food subsidy is given to FCI under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA) or to states for the decentralised procurement (DCP) of food grains. NFSA covers 80 crore people, and it is mandated to cover 75% of the population from rural areas and 50% from urban areas.5   

2017) ( Rs crore) 
Year 
Food 
subsidy 
% increase over 
previous year 
% of total 
budget 
2007-08 
31,328 
30% 
4.4% 
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 
1,35,173 
-3% 
6.7% 
2017-18 
1,45,339 
8% 
6.8% 

Note: Figures for 2016-17 are revised estimates; and for 2017-
18 are budget estimate.  
Sources:  Expenditure Budget, Union Budgets 2006-07 to 2017-
18); PRS. 

Till 2016-17, expenditure on food subsidy was 
provided under various heads.  These heads 
included subsidy given to FCI for imported oils, 
and interest subsidy for sugar mills, among others.   

As seen in Table 3, from 2017-18, expenditure has 
been classified under three heads: (i) subsidy to 
FCI for the Targeted Public Distribution System 
(TPDS), (ii) subsidy to states for DCP, and (iii) 
sugar subsidy.   

% change in 
2017-18 over 
Subsidy 
2015-16  
Actuals 
2016-17  
Revised 
2017-18  
Budgeted 
2016-17 
Subsidy to FCI on food grains 
45,000 1,00,000 
1,07,139 
7.1% 
Subsidy to states on DCP 
10,000 
30,673 
38,000 
23.9% 
Sugar subsidy 
4,500 
4,500 
200 
-95.6% 
Other subsidies* 
80,470 
1,407 
0 
NA 
Total 
1,39,970 1,36,580 
1,45,339 
6.4% 

* The overhead 'other subsidies' has been subsumed under 
'subsidy to FCI on food grains' from 2016-17.  
Sources: Detailed Demand for Grants 2017-18, Department of 
Food and Public Distribution; PRS.  

In 2017-18, the FCI has been allocated Rs 1,07,139 
crore.  In 2015, the Standing Committee noted that 
the requirement of funds by the Department, is not 
being covered by allocations- despite the overall 
food subsidy bill rising every year (see Table 4).19  

As a result, lower funds are allocated to FCI, which 
leads to FCI requiring ways and means advances 
from the government (Rs 50,000 crore in 2017-18).  

These advances are loans which have to be repaid with interest in the same financial year.  

Department (in Rs crore) 
Total 
Year 
Total 
requirement 
allocation 
Shortfall 
2012-13 
1,17,297 
84,554 
32,743 
2013-14 
1,43,198 
89,740 
53,458 
2014-15 
1,71,230 
1,10,500* 
60,730 
2015-16* 
1,46,348 
1,19,919 
26,429 

*Budgeted estimates. Sources: Report of the Standing Committee on Food and Public Distribution on Demand for Grants 2016-17; PRS.   
Sugar Industry:  In 2017-18, Rs 496 crore has been allocated for the development of the sugar industry, which is 70% lower than the revised estimates of 2016-17.  The allocated money is used to provide financial assistance to the sugar industry and facilitate payment to sugar cane farmers. Note that as of August 2016, Rs 6,598 crore was outstanding against sugar mills for payment of dues to farmers.6  State-wise details of the arrears can be found in Table 18 of the Annexure. 

## Issues With Delivery Of Food Subsidy

In this section, we examine some issues with the delivery of food subsidy, and discuss alternative subsidy systems that have been proposed by various committees and experts over the years.   

## A. Provision Of Food Subsidy

The Public Distribution System (PDS) sought to provide food security to people below the poverty line.  Over the years, the Department's expenditure on food subsidy has increased, while the ratio of people below poverty line has reduced (Table 5).  

Number of Poor 
Year 
Poverty Ratio 
(%) 
(Crore) 
1973-74 
54.9% 
32.1 
1977-78 
51.3% 
32.9 
1983 
44.5% 
32.3 
1987-88 
38.9% 
30.7 
1993-94 
36.0% 
32.0 
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 
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 6). 

| Number of            | Proportion of    |
|----------------------|------------------|
| Year                 | undernourished   |
| persons (crores)     |                  |
| undernourished in    |                  |
| total population (%) |                  |
| 1990-92              | 21               |
| 2000-02              | 19               |
| 2005-07              | 23               |
| 2010-12              | 19               |
| 2014-16*             | 20               |

*Provisional data. Sources: Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2015: Table 5.14, Chapter 5, Economic Survey 2015-16; PRS. 

Nutritional balance:  The NFSA guarantees wheat 
and rice to beneficiaries, to ensure nutritious intake 
of food.  As can be seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2, 
there has been a change in the nutritional intake 
pattern among people both in rural and urban areas.   

The share of cereals or food grains as a percentage 
of food consumption has reduced from 13% to 8% 
in the country, whereas that of milk, eggs, fish and 
meat has increased.7  This indicates a reduced 
preference for wheat and rice, and a rise in 
preference towards other protein rich food items.  
The NFSA states that the state and central 
governments should undertake steps to diversify 
commodities distributed under PDS.5,29   

More details related to the intake of calorie and 
nutrients by the rural and urban population can be 
found in Table 10 and Table 11 of the Annexure.   

Imbalance in farm production:  Minimum 
Support Price (MSP) is the price at which the 
government purchases a farmer's produce.  It seeks 
to incentivise farmers to grow crops on which the 
support is offered, by assuring a guaranteed price 

floor.  Typically, food grains for PDS are procured at the MSP.  As a result, procurement under MSP has been restricted to wheat and rice in a few states, to maintain a buffer stock for release under PDS.8,9   
It has been argued that this skews the production of crops in favour of wheat and rice, and does not offer an incentive for farmers to produce other items such as pulses.10  

## B. Delivery Of Food Subsidy

Currently, distribution of food grains is undertaken as part of the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS).  In 2017-18, out of the centre's total expenditure on subsidies, 52% was spent on providing food subsidy (Figure 3). 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.10,11  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.20,29 

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.5,29  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.20,29  

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.12 

The Cash Transfer for Food Security Rules, 2015 
were notified in September 2015.13  The Rules 
provide for DBT by states with the approval of the 
centre, or in identified areas.  As of March 2016, 
DBT for food subsidy was being implemented on a 
pilot basis in Puducherry, Chandigarh, and Dadra 
and Nagar Haveli.14  Note that the government has 
launched DBT for other subsidies such as LPG and 
fertiliser across the country. 

The High Level Committee on Restructuring of 
FCI in 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.15  
As of November 2016, 107.8 crore Aadhaar cards 
had been issued, covering 89% of the population.16 

The Committee also suggested that switching to 
DBT for food subsidy would reduce the food 
subsidy bill of the government by more than Rs 
30,000 crore.  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. 

## Table 7: Illustration: Subsidy Given On Rice

| 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. 

## C. Revision Of Central Issue Price (Cip)

Under 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 8.   

Table 8: 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 23/kg and for rice is Rs 33/kg as of February 2017.17  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 3,264/quintal in 2017-18, and of wheat, from Rs 853/quintal to Rs 2,409/quintal over the same period, the CIP has not been revised.17,2  This has led to an increasing gap between the economic cost and CIP, leading to an increase in expenditure on food subsidy.10  Trends in economic cost, CIP and subsidies for wheat and rice can be found in Figure 4 and Figure 5 below. 

In 2016-17, 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.18  Details related to the procurement of food grains, off-take and stock can be found in of the Annexure. 

 

## D. Current Challenges In Pds

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 12).2,19   

These 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.20,21   

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.22  It also noted that inclusion and 
exclusion errors had been reported in the 
beneficiary lists. 

Over the years, some solutions that have been 
suggested include: (i) DBT of food subsidy, and (ii) 
end to end computerisation of the entire system.2,28  
Details regarding the status of computerisation of 
PDS can be found in Table 14 of the Annexure.   

To check inefficiency in PDS and plug leakages, 
the government and other experts have suggested 
the integration of Aadhaar with PDS.  This is 
expected to facilitate the removal of bogus ration 
cards, check leakages and ensure better delivery of 
food grains.2,23,24 

In February 2017, the Ministry made it mandatory 
for beneficiaries under NFSA to use Aadhaar as 
proof of identification for receiving food grains.25  
Persons without Aadhaar numbers have been 
allowed to get a card till June 30, 2017.  Till then a 
person may be allowed to show an enrolment slip 
for Aadhaar, or other specified ID proofs such as a 
Voter ID card or passport.   

Note that as of January 2017, while 100% ration 
cards had been digitised, the seeding of these cards 
with Aadhaar was at 73%.23  With close to 27% of 
the ration cards yet to be seeded into Aadhaar, the 
impact of making it mandatory to receive food 
grains may be considered.  For details related to 
deleted ration cards due to detection of bogus, fake, 
and duplicate cards, see Table 17 of the Annexure. 

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 2017-18, Rs 60 crore has 
been allocated for storage and godowns, and Rs 15 
crore has been allocated to WADA. 

As of 2016-17, the total storage capacity in the 
country is 788 lakh tonnes, of which 354 lakh 
tonnes is with the FCI and 424 lakh tonnes is with 

the state agencies.26  The total stock of food grains in the country as of November 2016 was 314 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.22  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 6).22 As seen in Figure 6, 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.22  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.27 Note that during 2016-17, while the food subsidy given to FCI reduced by 3% over the budgeted estimates, the allocation to states for DCP increased 
                                                           

by 14%.3  This may indicate that the government is 
increasing allocations for DCP by states, and 
reducing its expenditure on centralised 
procurement by the FCI.   

The centre has allocated Rs 4,500 crore in 2017-18 
as assistance to states for intra-state movement of 
food grains and for the margin of fair price shop 
dealers.  This allocation is 80% higher than the 
revised estimates of 2016-17.   

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.28  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. 

## Quality Of Food Grains

There have been various issues related to the 
quality of food grains supplied under the PDS 
network.  A survey conducted in 2011 had noted 
that people complained about receiving poor 
quality food grain which had to be mixed with 
other grains to be edible.29  There have also been 
complaints about people receiving food grains 
containing alien substances such as pebbles.  Poor 
quality of food may impact the willingness of 
people to buy food from fair price shops, and may 
have an adverse impact on their health.30 

The Ministry has stated that while regular 
surveillance, monitoring, inspection and random 
sampling of all food items is under-taken by State 
Food Safety Officers, separate data for food grains 
distributed under PDS is unavailable.31  In the 
absence of data with regard to quality testing 
results of food grains supplied under PDS, it may 
be difficult to ascertain whether these food items 
meet the prescribed quality and safety standards.  

                                                                                                                                                                                     
13 "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. 14 Achievements & Initiatives taken by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution during 2016, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Press Information Bureau, December 26, 2016. 15 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%20Reorienting%20the% 20Role%20and%20Restructuring%20of%20FCI_English_1.pdf. 16 Unstarred Question No. 1281, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Answered on November 23, 2016, http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/10/AU1281.pdf. 17 Economic Cost, Food Corporation of India (last accessed on February 9, 2017), http://fci.gov.in/finances.php?view=23. 18 Tenth Report of the Committee on Demands for Grants (2016-17) in respect of Department of Food and Public Distribution (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution), May 2016, http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Food,%20Consumer%20Affairs%20&%20Public%20Distribution/16_Food_Consumer_Affairs_And_P ublic_Distribution_10.pdf. 19 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. 20 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. 21 Performance Evaluation of Targeted Public Distribution System, Planning Commission of India, March 2005, http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/peoreport/peo/peo_tpds.pdf. 22 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. 23 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. 24 "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_Aadhaar_PDS_Note.pdf. 25 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. 26 Annual Report 2016-17, Department of Food & Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, http://dfpd.nic.in/writereaddata/images/annual-140217.pdf. 27 Decentralised Procurement Scheme, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, http://dfpd.nic.in/decentralized-procurement.htm. 28 Newsletter of the Department of Food and Public Distribution, Jan-March, 2015, http://dfpd.nic.in/writereaddata/images/pdf/Final_English_version_of_newsletter_May_29_2015.pdf. 29 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. 30 Food Subsidy, The Economic and Political Weekly, December 27, 2014, http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2014_49/52/Food_Subsidy.pdf. 31 Unstarred Question No. 2124, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on November 29, 2016, http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/10/AU2124.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 (2017-18). In addition, major shifts in the budgetary allocation are shown in the last two columns.   

% increase in 
Budget  
Budget  
Major Heads 
Actual  
2017-18 (BE) over 
Increase 
2015-2016 
2016-2017 
Revised  
2016-2017 
2017-2018 
2016-17 (RE) 
Secretariat 
41 
52 
52 
55 
5% 
3 
National Sugar Institute, Kanpur 
20 
24 
21 
21 
1% 
0 
Other Establishment Expenditure of Food, Storage and Warehousing 
16 
23 
18 
19 
6% 
1 
Food Subsidy 
1,39,419 
1,34,835 
1,35,173 
1,45,339 
8% 
10,166 
Of which: 


- 
Food Subsidy to FCI under NFSA 
1,12,000 
1,03,335 
1,00,000 
1,07,139 
7% 
7,139 
Food Subsidy for DCP of Food grains under NFSA 
22,919 
27,000 
30,673 
38,000 
24% 
7,327 
Sugar Subsidy payable under PDS 
4,500 
4,500 
4,500 
200 
-96% 
-4,300 
2 
2,500 
2,500 
4,500 
80% 
2,000 
Assistance to State Agencies for intrastate movement of food grains and FPS dealers margin under NFSA Development of Sugar Industry 
750 
2,000 
1,672 
496 
-70% 
-1,176 
Strengthening of PDS Operations 
63 
80 
80 
... 
 
 
Storage and Godowns 
79 
52 
52 
60 
15% 
8 
Warehousing Development and Regulatory Authority 
15 
18 
15 
15 
0% 
- 
Other 
115 
567 
595 
- 
 
 
Total 
1,40,521 
1,40,150 
1,40,178 
1,50,505 
7% 
10,327 

Sources: Expenditure Budget, Vol. 2, Union Budget 2017-18; PRS.   

| Vegetables &    | Meats, eggs     | Miscellaneous    |
|-----------------|-----------------|------------------|
|                 |                 |                  |
| Cereals         |                 |                  |
| Pulses, nuts    |                 |                  |
| & oilseeds      | fruits          | & 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% 

Sources: Table 1, Working Paper 294, "Leakages from Public Distribution System", ICRIER; PRS.  

Year 
Procurement 
Offtake 
% Offtake 
Stocks 
Rice 
Wheat 
Total 
Rice 
Wheat 
Total 
Rice 
Wheat 
Total 
2003-04 
22.9 
15.8 
38.7 
25.0 
24.3 
49.3 
127.4% 
13.1 
6.9 
20.7 
2004-05 
24.7 
16.8 
41.5 
23.2 
18.3 
41.5 
100.0% 
13.3 
4.1 
18.0 
2005-06 
27.6 
14.8 
42.4 
25.1 
17.2 
42.3 
99.8% 
13.7 
2.0 
16.6 
2006-07 
25.1 
9.2 
34.3 
25.1 
11.7 
36.8 
107.3% 
13.2 
4.7 
17.9 
2007-08 
28.7 
11.1 
39.9 
25.2 
12.2 
37.4 
93.7% 
13.8 
5.8 
19.8 
2008-09 
34.1 
22.7 
56.8 
24.6 
14.9 
39.5 
69.5% 
21.6 
13.4 
35.6 
2009-10 
32.0 
25.4 
57.4 
27.4 
22.4 
49.7 
86.6% 
26.7 
16.1 
43.3 
2010-11 
34.2 
22.5 
56.7 
29.9 
23.1 
53.0 
93.5% 
28.8 
15.4 
44.3 
2011-12 
35.0 
28.3 
63.4 
32.1 
24.2 
56.3 
88.8% 
33.4 
20.0 
53.4 
2012-13 
34.0 
38.2 
72.2 
32.6 
33.2 
65.8 
91.1% 
35.5 
24.2 
59.8 
2013-14 
31.8 
25.1 
56.9 
29.2 
30.6 
59.8 
105.1% 
30.6 
17.8 
48.4 
2014-15 
32.2 
28.0 
60.2 
30.7 
25.2 
55.9 
92.9% 
23.8 
17.2 
41.0 
2015-16 
21.9 
28.1 
50 
23.3 
20.3 
43.6 
87.2% 
26.0 
23.8 
49.8 

Notes: Figures for procurement and stock as of January 2016.  Offtake numbers up to November 2015. Sources: Table 5.15, Chapter 5, Economic Survey 2015-16; PRS. 

| Online                 | Online           |
|------------------------|------------------|
| Transparency           | Operational      |
| State/UT               |                  |
| Computerization        |                  |
| of Supply-chain        | Portal           |
| Aadhaar                |                  |
| Seeding in             |                  |
| Ration Cards           |                  |
| Allocation of          |                  |
| Food grains            |                  |
| Grievance              |                  |
| Redressal              |                  |
| Andhra Pradesh         | 100% Implemented |
| Arunachal Pradesh      | 45% -            |
| Assam                  | 0% Implemented   |
| Bihar                  | 0% Implemented   |
| Chandigarh             | 100% NA          |
| Chhattisgarh           | 100% Implemented |
| Goa                    | 88% Implemented  |
| Gujarat                | 91% Implemented  |
| Haryana                | 91% Implemented  |
| Himachal Pradesh       | 96% Implemented  |
| Jammu and Kashmir      | 62% Up to TSOs*  |
| Jharkhand              | 95% Implemented  |
| Karnataka              | 98% Implemented  |
| Kerala                 | 98% Implemented  |
| Madhya Pradesh         | 85% Implemented  |
| Maharashtra            | 87% Implemented  |
| Manipur                | 1% Partial*      |
| Meghalaya              | 0% -             |
| Mizoram                | 12% -            |
| Nagaland               | 7% -             |
| Odisha                 | 85% Implemented  |
| Punjab                 | 100% Implemented |
| Rajasthan              | 99% Implemented  |
| Sikkim                 | 71% Implemented  |
| Tamil Nadu             | 88% Implemented  |
| Telangana              | 100% Implemented |
| Tripura                | 93% Implemented  |
| Uttar Pradesh          | 72% Implemented  |
| Uttarakhand            | 66% Implemented  |
| West Bengal            | 61% Implemented  |
| Andaman and Nicobar    |                  |
| Islands                |                  |
| 97% Implemented        | Implemented      |
| Dadra and Nagar Haveli | 94% Implemented  |
| Daman and Diu          | 100% Implemented |
| Delhi                  | 100% Implemented |
| Lakshadweep            | 98% -            |
| Puducherry             | 97% NA           |
| Total                  | 72%              |

Sources: Annual Report 2016-17, Department of Food & Public Distribution; PRS.   

|              | Wheat        | Rice     | Total    |
|--------------|--------------|----------|----------|
| Month        | Minimum      | Minimum  | Minimum  |
| buffer norms |              |          |          |
| Actual       |              |          |          |
| Stock        | buffer norms |          |          |
| Actual       |              |          |          |
| Stock        | buffer norms |          |          |
| Actual       |              |          |          |
| Stock        |              |          |          |
| Apr-09       | 70           | 134.3    | 142.0    |
| Jul-09       | 201          | 329.2    | 118.0    |
| Oct-09       | 140          | 271.6    | 72.0     |
| Jan-10       | 112          | 230.9    | 138.0    |
| Apr-10       | 70           | 161.3    | 142.0    |
| Jul-10       | 201          | 335.8    | 118.0    |
| Oct-10       | 140          | 277.8    | 72.0     |
| Jan-11       | 112          | 215.4    | 138.0    |
| Apr-11       | 70           | 153.6    | 142.0    |
| Jul-11       | 201          | 371.5    | 118.0    |
| Oct-11       | 140          | 314.3    | 72.0     |
| Jan-12       | 112          | 256.8    | 138.0    |
| Apr-12       | 70           | 199.5    | 142.0    |
| Jul-12       | 201          | 498.1    | 118.0    |
| Oct-12       | 140          | 431.5    | 72.0     |
| Jan-13       | 112          | 343.8    | 138.0    |
| Apr-13       | 70           | 242.1    | 142.0    |
| Jul-13       | 201          | 424.0    | 118.0    |
| Oct-13       | 140          | 361.0    | 72.0     |
| Jan-14       | 112          | 280.5    | 138.0    |
| Apr-14       | 70           | 178.3    | 142.0    |
| Jul-14       | 201          | 398.0    | 118.0    |
| Oct-14       | 140          | 328.5    | 72.0     |
| Jan-15       | 138          | 251      | 76       |
| Apr-15       | 75           | 172      | 136      |
| Jul-15       | 276          | 387      | 135      |
| Oct-15       | 205          | 325      | 103      |
| Jan-16       | 138          | 238      | 76       |
| Apr-16       | 75           | 145      | 136      |
| Jul-16       | 276          | 302      | 135      |
| Oct-16       | 205          | 213      | 103      |

Notes: New buffer norms came into effect from 22.01.15. These include strategic reserve of 20 lakh MT of wheat and 30 lakh MT of rice. Sources: Annual Report 2014-15 and 2016-17, Department of Food and Public Distribution; PRS. 

| Crop    | Paddy Common    | % increase over last year    | Wheat    | % increase over last year    |
|---------|-----------------|------------------------------|----------|------------------------------|
| 2005-06 | 570             | 1.8%                         | 650      | 1.6%                         |
| 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%                         |

Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation; CCEA, Press Information Bureau; PRS.   

| States/UTs                  | Total       |
|-----------------------------|-------------|
| Andhra Pradesh              | 9,67,000    |
| Arunachal Pradesh           | 14,911      |
| Assam                       | 72,746      |
| Bihar                       | 41,369      |
| Chandigarh                  | 0           |
| Chhattisgarh                | 10,39,000   |
| Goa                         | 1,11,020    |
| Gujarat                     | 1,39,174    |
| Haryana                     | 1,92,130    |
| Himachal Pradesh            | 3,260       |
| Jammu and Kashmir           | 0           |
| Jharkhand                   | 7,933       |
| Karnataka                   | 46,19,988   |
| Kerala                      | 0           |
| Madhya Pradesh              | 1,09,436    |
| Maharashtra                 | 21,62,391   |
| Manipur                     | 0           |
| Meghalaya                   | 0           |
| Mizoram                     | 997         |
| Nagaland                    | 0           |
| Odisha                      | 7,61,460    |
| Punjab                      | 1,01,249    |
| Rajasthan                   | 13,23,406   |
| Sikkim                      | 4,760       |
| Tamil Nadu                  | 3,70,727    |
| Telangana                   | 19,39,481   |
| Tripura                     | 1,76,986    |
| Uttar Pradesh               | 24,72,135   |
| Uttarakhand                 | 0           |
| West Bengal                 | 66,13,961   |
| Andaman and Nicobar Islands | 37          |
| Dadra and Nagar Haveli      | 1,647       |
| Daman and Diu               | 0           |
| Delhi                       | 35,056      |
| Lakshadweep                 | 1,390       |
| Puducherry                  | 28,008      |
| Total                       | 2,33,11,658 |

Sources: Unstarred Q. No. 844, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on Feb 7, 2017; PRS. 

Cane Price 
State 
Cane Price 
Arrears 2015-16 
Arrears 2014-15 
Cane Price Arrears 
For 2013-14 & Earlier 
Total Cane 
Price Arrears 
Andhra Pradesh 
81 
37 
0 
118 
Bihar 
30 
5 
40 
75 
Chhattisgarh 
1 
0 
0 
1 
Goa 
1 
0 
0 
1 
Gujarat 
203 
0 
13 
216 
Haryana 
126 
11 
0 
137 
Karnataka 
108 
17 
101 
226 
Madhya Pradesh 
6 
0 
13 
19 
Maharashtra 
411 
158 
70 
639 
Odisha 
19 
0 
3 
22 
Puducherry 
10 
5 
3 
18 
Punjab 
226 
0 
0 
226 
Tamil Nadu 
1,030 
286 
273 
1,589 
Telangana 
30 
0 
0 
30 
Uttar Pradesh 
2,877 
57 
112 
3,046 
Uttarakhand 
209 
0 
25 
234 
West Bengal 
0 
1 
0 
1 
Total 
5,368 
577 
653 
6,598 

Sources:  Unstarred Q. No. 3711, Lok Sabha, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Answered on Aug 9, 2016; PRS. 