Does converting welfare entitlements from household-based to per capita norms enhance equity or dilute the safety net for smaller vulnerable households? Discuss with reference to NFSA amendments.

Q. Does converting welfare entitlements from household-based to per capita norms enhance equity or dilute the safety net for smaller vulnerable households? Discuss with reference to NFSA amendments. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Under the NFSA, 2013, Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) households receive a flat 35 kg foodgrain per month irrespective of family size, while Priority Households get 5 kg per person [3]. The draft National Food Security (Amendment) Bill, 2026 proposes 7 kg per person, capped at 35 kg per household [1]. The shift improves horizontal equity, but its welfare outcome depends on the safeguards attached.

How per capita norms enhance equity - Corrects intra-AAY inequity: a flat quota gives a two-member family far more grain per head than an eight-member one; the draft Bill's stated aim is removing this size-linked distortion [1]. - Restores internal consistency with NFSA's own architecture, where Priority Households are already entitled on a per person basis [3]. - Aligns benefit with need, since large households — typically poorer in per capita terms — currently fall below the Priority norm despite being classed "poorest of the poor" [1].

How it can dilute the safety net - Smaller households lose absolutely: a three-member AAY family drops from 35 kg to 21 kg, a real cut for the aged, widows and single-person households who dominate this category. - Loss of a legal entitlement, not merely an administrative norm — the amendment alters the first proviso to Section 3(1), the operative guarantee of subsidised grain [1][3]. - Data risk: per capita calculation depends on accurate family size in ration records; stale PDS databases could mechanically shrink entitlements. States, which deliver NFSA through the PDS [4], have accordingly sought retention of the 35 kg floor.

Per capita norms are equitable in principle but regressive at the margin, since the smallest households are often the most vulnerable. A calibrated design — retaining 35 kg as a household floor rather than only a ceiling, with periodic verification of family size — would reconcile equity with adequacy, honouring the NFSA's promise of food security as a justiciable right for 75% of rural and 50% of urban India [2].

(~325 words)

Sources: 1. Inviting comments on the draft National Food Security (Amendment) Bill, 2026 — Department of Food and Public Distribution — proposal of 7 kg/person capped at 35 kg/household; equity rationale; amendment to first proviso to Section 3(1) 2. PIB — National Food Security Act, 2013 provides coverage of 75% rural and 50% urban population — NFSA coverage extent 3. The National Food Security Act, 2013 (Act No. 20 of 2013) — full text — Section 3(1) entitlements: 35 kg/AAY household, 5 kg/person for Priority Households 4. PRS Legislative Research — Public Distribution System and Food Security (Thematic Note) — State role in PDS delivery of NFSA entitlements