13 The national food security act 2013

Prof. Rehan Abeyratne

epgp books

 

Introduction

The right to food is a constitutionally protected right in India. In PUCL v. Union of India (2001), the Indian Supreme Court held that the right to food comprises part of the fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. In 2013, the Indian Parliament followed the Supreme Court’s lead and enacted comprehensive legislation to ensure that the right to food is fully realized and implemented.

This chapter will introduce students to the National Food Security Act (2013). It looks at how the Act came into being and some of its most important provisions. Because the Act was only enacted recently, its impact and effectiveness has not yet been determined and is therefore beyond the scope of this chapter.

Learning Outcomes:

 

After completing this chapter, students should know and understand:

  • The origins of the National Food Security Act (2013) The major schemes outlined in the Act
  • How the Act divides responsibility between central and state governments
  • The Act’s monitoring and grievance redressal mechanisms

I. The Origins of the National Food Security Act (2013)

The National Food Security Act (2013) [hereinafter “Act”] can be traced back to the Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in PUCL v. Union of India. This case was filed by an NGO on behalf of famine victims in six Indian states. It accused the governments of those states, the Government of India, and the Food Corporation of India of violating the fundamental rights of the famine victims. While the right to food is not explicitly enumerated as a fundamental right in the Indian Constitution, the petitioners argued that adequate food is necessary to live with dignity. They relied on past Supreme Court jurisprudence that had recognized that the right to life in Article 21 of the Constitution protected a broader right to live with dignity for all Indian citizens. On November 28, 2001, the Court passed an order in favor of the petitioners – it held that the right to food is a fundamental right under Article 21 and directed the respondents to enact a range of schemes related to food production and distribution. The PUCL litigation remains open today, as the Court has passed more than 50 interim orders on a range of food-related and other socioeconomic issues. A “Right to Food” Campaign has built up around this case and has played an important role not only in keeping the litigation going, but advocating for a legislative act to fully realize the right to food.

 

The possibility of a Food Security Act came to national prominece in 2009. In 2004, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), led by the Indian National Congress (INC), won a majority in the Indian Parliament after general elections. To help secure their reelection in 2009, the UPA’s electoral mandate included a comprehensive Food Security Bill.3 The proposal for the Bill was supported by the National Advisory Council and the Right to Food Campaign. This proposed Bill would include universal (or near universal) coverage of the population to minimise the exclusion of the needy, the continuation of an in-kind transfer system like the Public Distribution System, and auxiliary support programs for pregnant women, the destitute, and the homeless. Summing up the UPA position, Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi stated, “The question is not whether we have enough resources or not or whether it benefits farmers or not. We have to arrange resources for it. We have to do it.” The UPA retained parliamentary control in 2009 and followed through on their electoral promise to enact a National Food Security Act.

 

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) opposed the National Food Security Bill, but ultimately voted in favour of its enactment. In the build up to the vote, BJP leaders voiced several practical concerns with the bill. Murli Manohar Joshi led the opposition’s argument, stating that the Bill was not a significant improvement over existing benefits. The essence of the opposition position concerned the methods proposed in the Bill to provide for food subsidies. Mr. Yashwant Sinha said that the Bill was against the interests of farmers because it could lead to “round-tripping” of grains. He further stated, “If we push so much grain into the market, it will find its way back into the system.” Another BJP leader, Nitin Gadkari, highlighted possible issues with implementation. He noted that the eligility criteria set forth in the Bill was not clear and could lead to anomalies in implementation.

II. The National Food Security Act (2013) and its Major Schemes

The National Food Security Act  came into force on 10 September 2013. The legislation provides for “food and nutritional security” to ensure “access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices.” Building on the PUCL v. Union of India case, the Act declares that such access is for “people to live a life with dignity.” It therefore acknowledges that the right to food is part of the right to life. The Act is divided into 13 Chapters that not only provide for reforms in existing government schemes, but also introduce new measures to progressively realize the right to food in India.

Chapter II covers entitlements to eligible/priority households under existing schemes. The scope of eligible households is vast. They constitute 50% of the urban population and 75% of the rural population of India. These households are entitled to receive five kilograms of food grains per month under the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS). Certain households are entitled to receive 35 kilograms of food grains per month, at a subsidy, under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) scheme. Schedule I of the Act specifies the subsidized prices under both schemes.

Chapter V of the Act focuses on reforms to the TPDS. These include: (1) doorstep delivery of food grains to TPDS shops; (2) computerized record keeping; and (3), the use of ‘aadhar’ cards to ensure greater transparency throughout the system. The aadhar system is supposed to ensure that eligible households are accurately identified and targeted. Meanwhile, computerized record-keeping and doorstep delivery should ensure that food grains are not diverted to other locations, but instead reach eligible households while being fully traceable. Chapter XI of the Act seeks to improve the transparency and accountability of the TPDS. It provides for periodic audits of fair price shops as well as that all records are accessible to the public.

Another important TPDS reform in the Act is that the state governments must now prioritize local bodies like Panchayats, women’s collectives, and self-help groups when determining who should manage fair price shops. This is intended to prevent external fair price shop license holders from exploiting eligible families under the TPDS.

The Act also contains several provisions aimed at women and children. Chapter II of the NFSA requires the government to provide pregnant women and lactating mothers with one free meal a day throughout their pregnancy and for six months afterwards. Schedule II specifies nutritional requirements that must be met. These women are also entitled to receive a minimum of 6,000 rupees as a maternity benefit.

Chapter VI focuses on women’s empowerment. It provides that the State shall consider the oldest woman in every eligible household (over eighteen years of age) the “head of the household” when issuing ration cards. If the oldest woman is under eighteen years of age, the Act provides that the oldest man shall be considered the head of the household until the woman turns eighteen. By placing women in positions of responsibility, the Act aims to empower woman and to make them less vulnerable to exploitation. The provisions targeting pregnant women and lactating mothers should also ensure that they receive adequate nutrition, even if they are not eligible to receive subsidized food grains under the TPDS.

With respect to children, Chapter II of the Act provides all children up to age fourteen with a free mid-day meal (the Mid-Day Meal Scheme) every day with a special emphasis on children between six months and six years of age, who are entitled to a free daily meal through their local anganwadi. Schedule II of the Act also specifies the nutritional standards these meals must meet. State governments are responsible for identifying malnourished children and providing them with free meals through the local anganwadi.

Schedule II of the Act prescribes nutritional standards for children, pregnant women, and lactating mothers. The standards are consistent with the Mid-Day Meal Scheme and the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) scheme for children between six months and six years of age. The Schedule also sets forth the nutritional standards that the “Take Home Rations” or “Hot Cooked Meals” must meet.

Schedule II requires the meals given to children contain 450 to 700 calories and 12 to 20 grams of protein. Malnourished children are to receive meals that contain 800 calories and 20 to 25 grams of protein. Pregnant women and lactating mothers’ meals must contain 600 calories and 18 to 20 grams of protein.

Division of Responsibilities and Monitoring/Grievance Redressal Mechanisms

A. Central and State Government Responsibilities

The National Food Security Act (2013) clearly divides responsibility between central and state governments. Both are given specific responsibilities with respect to implementing the different provisions of the Act and realizing the right to food. State governments are responsible for implementing children’s and women’s entitlements under Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Act. The central government is responsible for prescribing guidelines relating to the implementation of these schemes and it also has the power to devise a cost-sharing mechanism to realize these entitlements.

The Act also divides responsibility between the central and state governments for food grain distribution to priority households. This is set forth in Chapter IV. State governments are responsible for identifying eligible households under both the TPDS and AAY.  The central government is responsible for calculating the number of eligible people under the schemes (in urban and rural areas) in each state and allocating food grains to those states accordingly.  Thus, the Act is organized in a federal manner, in which the powers of the state governments are subject to central government guidelines.

B. Monitoring and Grievance Redressal Mechanisms

The Act contains both monitoring and grievance redressal mechanisms. To ensure that the TDPS remains transparent and all actors are held accountable, state governments are required to set up Vigilance Committees at different levels. These Committees must ensure that the local population is represented. They oversee the local implementation of the TDPS and report violations to the prescribed authorities.

The responsibility for setting up internal grievance mechanisms lies entirely with state governments. Under Chapter VII of the Act, they must appoint District Grievance Redressal Officers that are responsible for resolving disputes regarding food grain distribution and enforcing the various entitlements prescribed in Chapter II.

State governments are also required to establish State Food Commissions. The Commissions must consist of seven members, with at least two women and two members belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to ensure varied representation. The State Food Commission is responsible for overseeing implementation of the Act. It is empowered to respond to complaints and undertake inquiries regarding violations of Chapter II of the Act. It also acts as an appellate body that hears appeals against the orders of the District Grievance Redressal Officer and as an advisory institution to the State Government, its agencies, and NGOs that work on the right to food. The State Food Commission is granted all the powers of a civil court while hearing appeals and undertaking inquiries on violations. It is therefore designed to be a robust and effective grievance redressal mechanism.

Summary

The right to food has been a constitutionally protected fundamental right for more than a decade. On November 28, 2001, in PUCL v. Union of India, the Supreme Court issued an interim order that declared the right to food part of the broader right to live with dignity enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Thereafter, a “Right to Food” Campaign emerged that not only pursued further litigation, but also advocated for comprehensive legislation on the right to food. The ruling UPA coalition, led by the Congress Party, included food security legislation as part of their electoral mandate before the 2009 general elections. They followed through on their electoral pledge and introduced a National Food Security Bill, which was enacted as the National Food Security Act (2013) on 10 September 2013.

The Act contains a range of provisions to improve existing schemes and introduce new benefits. They include reforms to the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS), special benefits to mothers and pregnant women, and protections for women and children. In particular, the Act designates the oldest woman in every eligible household as “head of the household” for the purpose of receiving a ration card. It also prescribes minimum nutritional requirements for the Mid-Day Meals Scheme, for malnourished children, and for pregnant and lactating women.

The Act divides responsibilities for implementation and realization of the right to food between the central and state governments. While state governments are responsible for identifying eligible households and implementing schemes on the ground, they must act in accordance with guidelines set forth by the Government of India. The Act therefore prescribes a federal framework.

State governments are also responsible for implementing monitoring and grievance redressal mechanisms. They must create Vigilance Committees, with local representation, at different levels to oversee the TPDS and report violations to the relevant authorities. They must also appoint District Grievance Redressal Officers that are responsible for resolving disputes regarding food grain distribution and enforcing the various entitlements. State governments are also responsible for establishing State Food Commissions that have all the powers of civil courts, and are entrusted with hearing complaints and undertaking investigations of possible violations of the Act.

you can view video on The national food security act 2013

Reference

  • PUCL v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 (2001).
  • Right to Food Campaign, http://www.righttofoodindia.org.
  • The Indian National Congress Election Manifesto 2009, available at: http://incmanifesto.a-i.in/manifesto09-eng.pdf.
  • Ashok Kotwal et al., The Political Economy of Food Subsidy in India, 30 The Copenhagen J. of Asian Stud. 100 (2012), available at: http://www.isid.ac.in/~bharat/Research/Political_Economy_of_food_subsidy_in_India.PDF.
  • HT Correspondent, Sonia’s Ambitious Food Bill Wins LS vote; UPA gets its ‘game-changer’, Hindustan Times (Aug. 26, 2013), available at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/newdelhi/sonia-s-ambitious-food-bill-wins-ls-vote-upa-gets-its-game-changer/article1-1113348.aspx.
  • Reuters, Indian Parliament Passes Food Security Bill, as Sonia Gandhi Hospitalised, Australia News Network (Aug. 27, 2013), available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-27/an-indian-parliament-passes-food-security-bill/4914118.
  • Times News Network, Lok Sabha Passes Food Security Bill; Congress, Opposition Battle for Credit, The Times of India (Aug. 27, 2013), available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Lok-Sabha-passes-Food-Security-Bill-Congress-opposition-battle-for-credit/articleshow/22079923.cms.
  • ET Bureau, Food Security Bill: Change it Says BJP, Junk It, THE ECONOMIC TIMES (June 4, 2013), available at: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-04/news/39740598_1_national-food-security-bill-yashwant-sinha-sp-leader-naresh-agarwal.
  • FP Politics, Politics of Convenience: Why BJP Won’t Fight the Food Security Bill, FIRST POST POLITICS (Aug. 20, 2013), available at: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/despite-modi-why-bjp-will-not-oppose-the-food-security-bill-1045807.html.
  • The National Food Security Act, No. 20 of 2013, India Code (2013), available at: http://indiacode.nic.in/acts-in-pdf/202013.pdf.
  • AAY was launched by the Prime Minister of India on December 25, 2000. The scheme is the result of the government’s commitment to ensure food security and create a hunger free India. Under the AAY, the target groups are provided with ration cards, and then food grains at a subsidized price. The target groups of the AAY consist of the poorest of the poor, the bottom 5% of people that cannot get two meals a day, in rural and urban areas.
  • Panchayats are the institutions of local self-governance at the village level in India.
  • The National Food Security Act, No. 20 of 2013, India Code, § 12(2)(e) (2013), available at: http://indiacode.nic.in/acts-in-pdf/202013.pdf.
  • The National Food Security Act, No. 20 of 2013, India Code, § 7 (2013), available at http://indiacode.nic.in/acts-in-pdf/202013.pdf.