Discuss the rationale and implications of shifting AAY foodgrain entitlement under the NFSA from a household-based to a per capita basis. Examine the concerns raised by States.

Q. Discuss the rationale and implications of shifting AAY foodgrain entitlement under the NFSA from a household-based to a per capita basis. Examine the concerns raised by States. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Under the NFSA, 2013 — covering ~75% rural and ~50% urban population — Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) households, the "poorest of the poor", receive a flat 35 kg per household per month irrespective of size [2]. The draft National Food Security (Amendment) Bill, 2026 recasts this as 7 kg per person, capped at 35 kg per household [1], reopening the equity-versus-protection debate.

Rationale for the shift - Removing intra-category inequity: a flat quota gives small households a high per-capita share and large households a low one; the Centre frames the change as correcting this disparity [1]. - Nutritional logic: entitlement tracks individuals, aligning AAY with the Priority Household norm of 5 kg/person [2]. - Uniformity: the Union Food Minister has assured "no reduction of food grains to any State or beneficiary", stressing consistent allocation across regions [3]. - Fiscal rationalisation: an implicit trimming of subsidy outgo, since the 35 kg ceiling caps gains for large families while smaller ones draw less.

Implications - Gainers and losers: households of five or more retain 35 kg, but a four-member family drops to 28 kg and a two-member family to just 14 kg [4]. - Legal: it alters the first proviso to Section 3(1) — a statutory entitlement, not a discretionary benefit — touching the right to food under Article 21 [1]. - Administrative: correct per-capita issue depends on updated family-size data in ration cards and PDS databases; stale records risk exclusion.

State concerns - Tamil Nadu: about 15.75 lakh of its 18.64 lakh AAY households have fewer than five members; monthly AAY allocation could fall from 65,261 to 42,040 tonnes [4]. - Kerala has demanded retention of the 35 kg norm [4]. - Federal friction: States run the PDS, so entitlement redesign without their consensus strains cooperative federalism; southern States with smaller families feel demographically penalised.

The proposal seeks horizontal equity but risks vertical dilution of the safety net. A workable middle path — a guaranteed household floor alongside per-capita scaling, phased with updated beneficiary data and structured Centre-State consultation during the comment window — would preserve the reform's equity intent while honouring NFSA's promise of food security as a right and India's SDG-2 commitment to zero hunger.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Inviting Comments on the Draft National Food Security (Amendment) Bill, 2026 — Department of Food & Public Distribution — 7 kg/person capped at 35 kg/household; stated rationale of intra-category inequity; amendment to first proviso to Section 3(1) 2. National Food Security Act, 2013 provides coverage of 75% rural and 50% urban population — PIB — NFSA coverage; AAY 35 kg/household; PHH 5 kg/person 3. Union Minister Pralhad Joshi assures no reduction of food grains to any State & beneficiary under NFS (Amendment) Bill, 2026 — Akashvani News — Centre's assurance on uniformity and no reduction 4. The debate over the proposed NFSA amendment | Explained — The Hindu — Tamil Nadu household and tonnage figures; Kerala's objection; smaller-family loss illustrations