General Studies 2021 GS Paper III 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Describe

Q13

What are the salient features of the National Food Security Act, 2013? How has the Food Security Bill helped in eliminating hunger and malnutrition in India? (Answer in 250 words)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

राष्ट्रीय खाद्य सुरक्षा अधिनियम, 2013 की मुख्य विशेषताएँ क्या हैं ? खाद्य सुरक्षा विधेयक ने भारत में भुख तथा कुपोषण को दूर करने में किस प्रकार सहायता की है ? (250 शब्दों में उत्तर दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 General Studies questions

Directive word: Describe

This question asks you to describe. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'describe' requires a systematic exposition of NFSA 2013's features followed by analytical assessment of its hunger-elimination impact. Structure: brief intro → Part I: salient features (legal entitlements, beneficiaries, PDS reforms, grievance redressal) → Part II: impact analysis with evidence → balanced conclusion on achievements and gaps.

Key points expected

Coverage: 75% rural and 50% urban population entitled to subsidised foodgrains (5kg/person/month at ₹3/2/1 for rice/wheat/coarse grains)
Legal entitlements: pregnant women, lactating mothers, children (6 months-14 years) get maternity benefits and nutritious meals
Institutional mechanisms: State Food Commissions, grievance redressal, transparency through digitised ration cards and Aadhaar seeding
Impact data: reduction in undernourishment from 22.2% (2004-06) to 14% (2019-21) per FAO; stunting decline from 48% (2006) to 35.5% (2019-21) per NFHS-5
Persistent challenges: exclusion errors, leakages (estimated 40% pre-digitalisation), quality issues, Covid-19 disruption to school mid-day meals
Complementary schemes: POSHAN Abhiyaan, Saksham Anganwadi, fortification initiatives strengthening NFSA outcomes

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Clearly bifurcates response into 'salient features' (descriptive) and 'eliminating hunger' (evaluative), maintaining appropriate tone for each; avoids mixing constitutional/statutory details with impact analysis	Addresses both parts but conflates features with impact or treats entire answer as purely descriptive without evaluative element on hunger reduction	Misreads directive as purely descriptive ignoring second evaluative component, or discusses food security generally without NFSA-specific focus
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Precise statutory details (quantities, prices, beneficiary categories) combined with nuanced impact assessment acknowledging regional variations and scheme limitations	Broadly correct features mentioned but with minor inaccuracies in quantities/prices; impact discussed without temporal specificity or mixed success indicators	Confuses NFSA with earlier schemes (Antyodaya, TPDS); makes unsupported claims about hunger elimination; omits key entitlements like maternity benefits
Structure & flow	20%	3	Clear two-part structure with visible sub-headings or paragraph breaks; logical progression from legal framework to implementation outcomes; smooth transitions between features and impact analysis	Both parts present but poorly demarcated; some organisational logic exists but reader must infer structure; conclusion attempts synthesis	Disorganised listing without thematic grouping; abrupt shifts between topics; missing or incoherent conclusion within word limit
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Cites specific NFHS-5/FAO data on malnutrition trends; references Supreme Court interventions (PUCL v. Union of India 2001) or State Food Commission reports; mentions Odisha/ Chhattisgarh PDS reforms as best practices	Vague references to 'improved nutrition indicators' without specific data; mentions SC orders on right to food generally without case specificity; no state-level examples	No quantitative evidence; relies on assertion ('hunger has reduced'); confuses NFSA with NREGA or other schemes; irrelevant international comparisons without Indian data
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Balanced verdict recognising NFSA as legal foundation while noting implementation gaps (exclusion, Covid disruption); suggests way forward (universal PDS, nutrition-sensitive agriculture) without exceeding word limit	Generic positive conclusion about NFSA importance; acknowledges 'some challenges' without specificity; no forward-looking recommendations	Extreme conclusion declaring hunger 'eliminated' or scheme 'complete failure'; missing conclusion; introduces new arguments without synthesis

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →