Discuss the constraints of the APMC system and evaluate how e-NAM addresses these constraints. Why has adoption of the Model APLM Act, 2017 been uneven across states?

Agricultural marketing is a State subject, and State APMC Acts long confined farmers to notified mandis. Reform has therefore come through a central platform (e-NAM) and an advisory model law, whose combined impact remains real but partial.

Constraints of the APMC system

• Monopolistic, fragmented markets: notified mandis restricted where farmers could sell, weakening price discovery [2].
• Cartelisation and intermediation: layers of licensed traders and commission agents reduced the farmer's share of the consumer rupee [2].
• Multiple levies: market fees charged at several points raised transaction costs, prompting the single-point levy reform [2].
• Post-harvest infrastructure gaps: inadequate storage and cold chains, now targeted by the AMI Scheme (12,353 storage projects, 369.18 lakh MT) and the Agriculture Infrastructure Fund [1].

Evaluating e-NAM

• Gains: launched April 2016, e-NAM virtually integrates physical mandis — 1,361 APMCs across 23 States and 4 UTs, 209 commodities [2]; 1.89 crore farmers and 2.78 lakh traders registered as of 30 June 2026 [1]. Transparent online bidding widens the buyer pool, while e-NWR integration enables warehouse-receipt-based marketing and credit [2].
• Limits: coverage is a subset of India's mandis [2]; inter-state trade, though rising from ₹37 lakh (2018-19) to ₹14.28 crore (2025-26), stays marginal [1]. Crucially, e-NAM integrates rather than replaces APMCs, so assaying, grading and logistics bottlenecks persist [2].

Why Model APLM Act adoption is uneven

• Marketing being a State subject, the 2017 Model Act (circulated 24 April 2017) is advisory; states adopt voluntarily [1][2].
• Mandi fees are a significant state revenue stream, and entrenched trader lobbies resist dilution.
• Political caution deepened after the farm laws episode.
• Administrative capacity varies — NITI Aayog's Agricultural Marketing & Farm Friendly Reforms Index, topped by Maharashtra, showed wide inter-state dispersion [3].

Thus e-NAM has improved transparency without dismantling structural rigidities that only states can remove. Sustained progress lies in incentive-linked funding, deeper mandi and FPO integration, and using competitive federalism through reform indices — reform by persuasion, consistent with the constitutional division of powers.