Government's affidavit in Supreme Court on Food Grains Procurement

In August 2010, The Supreme Court while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) suggested the centre to distribute free food grains to the hungry poor people of the country instead of allowing them to rot in go-downs or storehouses.

The suggestion was:

"Give it to the hungry poor instead of it (grains) going down the drain,"

Other suggestions included construction of one big go-down in each of the states, besides separate go-downs in different districts and divisions within the states, and ensure that the fair price shops are kept open throughout the month.

The court also suggested that the government should procure food grains in proportion to storage capacity.

What was the PIL?

The PIL was filed by PUCL on the rampant corruption in Public Distribution System (PDS), besides rotting of food grains in Food Corporation of India (FCI) go-downs.

What were other suggestions of the Court?

Court asked the government to consider disbanding PDS supply to Above Poverty Line (APL) families and restrict the benefit only to BPL families and Antodya Anna Yojana (AAY) Scheme beneficiaries.

What is Government's Stand?

Government has following stand:

1. It cannot follow its suggestion to procure food grains in proportion to storage capacity as it had to cater to the farmers by providing them Minimum Support Price (MSP) for their produce.
2. The "procurement policy of the government of India has twin objectives of ensuring minimum support price to the farmers and meeting the requirements of the food grains for the public distribution system (PDS) and other welfare schemes.
3. If procurement agencies of both the central government and state governments were not to lift the farmers' produce then in peak procurement season, farmers would be left at the mercy of traders who may not pay adequate price. Returns would be a disincentive for the farmers to sow these crops which in turn would "drastically impact food security of the nation.
4. Government 'indirectly' makes it clear that it does not incline to supply food grains free to the poor. It says that under the AAY the element of subsidy was 87.05 percent in case of wheat and 85.32 percent in respect of rice, while for the BPL card holders, the subsidy component was 73.12 percent and 72.35 percent for wheat and the rice.
5. The abolition of APL category of card holders is not desirable, because the food security law is under consideration of the government.
6. The government also says that National Advisory Council was already examining the entire issue of food security and the proposed legislation would be finalized soon.