Critically examine the shift from household-based to per-capita entitlement under the proposed NFSA amendment, 2026. Does it enhance equity or undermine adequacy for the poorest households?

The NFSA, 2013 covers up to 75% of the rural and 50% of the urban population [3], but uses two different yardsticks: Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) households get a flat 35 kg per household per month, while Priority Households (PHH) get 5 kg per person [2]. The draft National Food Security (Amendment) Bill, 2026 proposes 7 kg per person for AAY, capped at 35 kg per household [1] — recasting the poorest category on per-capita logic.

The equity case for the shift

• Corrects an internal anomaly: a seven-member AAY family today receives about 5 kg a head, and a larger one even less — i.e. below the PHH norm, though AAY is the poorer category [2].
• Preserves AAY's premium: 7 kg per person exceeds the 5 kg PHH entitlement, so the "poorest of the poor" status remains materially recognised [1].
• Design consistency: entitlement becomes person-linked, matching the statutory PHH formula and digitised, portable ration-card delivery [2].
• Process legitimacy: routed through pre-legislative consultation, with public comments invited before introduction [1].

Where adequacy is undermined

• Small households lose sharply: a two-member AAY household falls from 35 kg to 14 kg; a single destitute widow or disabled person to 7 kg [1]. AAY targets destitution, not family size — the flat 35 kg functioned as a survival floor for households with no earning member.
• Equalisation is downward: the 35 kg cap is retained [1], so large families gain nothing; the inequity is removed by cutting the smaller households, not raising the larger.
• Federal edge: States with smaller average household size, owing to earlier demographic transition, face a disproportionate fall in aggregate offtake — penalising successful family-planning outcomes.

The amendment improves horizontal equity among AAY members but weakens absolute adequacy for the smallest, most vulnerable households. A balanced course is to retain per-capita computation while guaranteeing a statutory household minimum, so no existing beneficiary receives less than today. Since the consultation stage is still open [1], this refinement can be built in — keeping the Act aligned with the right to food under Article 21 and SDG-2's Zero Hunger goal.