Why are Tamil Nadu and Kerala opposed to the proposed changes in the Food Security Act?

Story so far:

On 6 July, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay urged the Center to maintain the current provision of 35 kg of food grains per household per month under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) for the poorest of the poor and not make it a per capita scheme. The next day, the CPI(M) Polit Bureau expressed its concern and demanded that the proposed change in eligibility criteria be dropped. About 10 days ago, immediately after the Union government unveiled its plan to amend the National Food Security Act (NFSA), Kerala Food Minister Anoop Jacob expressed reservations about the move.

Also read | NFSA allowances: 7 kg of food grains per person and a maximum of 35 kg per household

What is the amendment about?

On June 24, the Food and Public Distribution Department (F&PD) of the Union while publishing a draft amendment to the NFSA lawsaid that each person belonging to AAY households would be entitled to seven kg of food grains per month, subject to a maximum of 35 kg per household per month. Currently, the entitlement for the entire household is capped at 35 kg per month. The proposed amendment relates to the first proviso to subsection (1) § 3 (Right to receive cereals at discounted prices for persons belonging to eligible households) of the Act. The public can comment on the proposed amendments till July 13 and send their views via email to suneel.sachdeva@nic.in and saurabhomar.edu@gov.in.

Why is the change proposed?

The existing household entitlement, although intended as a protective measure for the most vulnerable families, results in significant inequalities depending on household size, the Department of F&PD says. Smaller households receive a higher per capita entitlement, while larger households receive a lower per capita entitlement, which may fall below the entitlement enjoyed by priority households. The aim and purpose is to eliminate inequities within the categories, ensure more rational allocation of food and better align claims with nutritional requirements, according to a report prepared by the ministry.

However, the proposed amendment does not attempt to address the issue of including ineligible persons as beneficiaries, the problem of which is faced at the state level.

What is the story of the opposition of the two southern states?

This is not the first time that both states have expressed their opposition to matters related to food policy, as their current political history has an important component – food policy. Kerala, which has a long history of a public distribution system (PDS) dating back to the now-defunct princely state of Travancore, introduced informal food distribution mechanisms to alleviate food shortages for the poor and vulnerable, and was perhaps the first to start a formal PDS in 1962, three years before the establishment of the Food Corporation of India (FCI). On at least two occasions – 1952 and 1967 – Tamil Nadu saw political turmoil, with the incumbent regime reduced to a minority in 1952 and shown the door (in 1967). This was because the governments of the periods in question were not quick to deal with rice shortages. Since 1967, successive chief ministers of the state have been cautious in taking decisions on the subject of rice.

It was no wonder that the two states were vocal in their stance in preparation for the formulation of the NFSA. Although the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) took over in 2011 in Kerala, the government did not agree to implement the 2013 Act – an Act of Parliament – despite the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance regime at the Center pushing for the legislation. The main caveat was that the NFSA would lead to the removal of “a large number of poor families” from the beneficiary list and impose a “huge financial burden” on the state. However, the then Chief Minister Oommen Chandy at one point pledged to enforce the law in his state, although the formal decision was left to his successor Pinarayi Vijayan.

In Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa as chief minister strongly opposed the law because immediately after coming to power in May 2011, her government started distributing free rice to all ration card holders regardless of their economic status. She criticized the government for saying that those who will be left out of the NFSA will not be eligible for free rice. In the end, she extracted a major concession from the Union government that the existing allocations, as they were in 2013, for all states would be legally protected.

If the graphic is not displayed, click here

It was therefore no surprise that the two southern neighbors joined the rest of the country in implementing the law in November 2016.

Why are Tamil Nadu and Kerala against NFSA amendment?

Explaining how Kerala would be affected by the latest move, Mr. Jacob pointed out that states like his, characterized by nuclear families, would be at a disadvantage as the amount of free food for families of less than five members would be reduced. He recalled that even in 2013, when the law came into force, his state took the position that AAY card holders deserved “special attention”, and continues to do so. “As a consumer state, any reduction in Kerala’s allocation is worrisome,” said Mr. Jacob.

Mr. Vijay, who mentioned in his letter to Mr. Modi how the amendment would cause the monthly food grain allocation to drop from 65,261 tonnes to 42,040 tonnes, said the number of AAY card holders below the family size of five members is 15.75 lakh (out of a total of 18.65 lakh beneficiaries) (total: 69.27 million). “Rice provided to AAY card holders is a staple of all three meals of the day and cannot be substituted with any other commodity from the free market, resulting in significant out-of-pocket expenses,” he said.

Additionally, Anuradha Talwar, an official at the Right to Food Campaign, said the amendment would bring about a “north-south disparity” in food allocations, as families in northern states would receive higher rations because their average family size was larger than in southern states.

What is the way forward?

Ideally, such a change should be subject to greater public scrutiny in order to achieve consensus. However, T. Sadagopan, president of the Tamil Nadu Progressive Consumer Center and a veteran activist who has served on state government panels on food, suggests that the Center should take a middle path by allocating 30 kg per family, regardless of family members. This would help the Union government reduce its subsidy bill.

Published – 8 Jul 2026 11:49 AM IST