On January 17, 2020, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare acknowledged the emergence of COVID-19 pandemic that was spreading across China. Tamil Nadu reported its first confirmed case of COVID-19 on March 7, 2020. As of April 28, the state has 1,937 confirmed cases of COVID-19 (seventh highest in the country). Of these, 1,101 have recovered (third highest rate of recovery in the country among states with 100 or more cases) and 24 have died. The state government has taken several actions to contain the spread and impact of COVID-19. In this blog, we look at the key measures taken by the Tamil Nadu government between January 19 and April 28, 2020.
Initial phase
The Tamil Nadu government came out with a series of responses between January 19 and February 1. These included: (i) readying Rapid Response Teams (RRTs) at state and district levels, (ii) setting up of a 24/7 control room, (iii) thermal scanning of air travellers from China, (iv) creating isolation wards in the General Hospitals of four major cities, and (v) running appropriate awareness campaigns.
Some of the other early measures are summarised below:
Health measures
On March 13, the Governor declared COVID-19 to be a notified disease in the state of Tamil Nadu, under the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939. Notifying a disease allows for incidences of the disease to be mandatorily reported to the government and in turn, helps authorities to respond with appropriate measures to prevent the spread of the disease.
On March 15, the government prescribed the Tamil Nadu COVID-19 Regulations, 2020. These regulations detail the responsibilities of hospitals and individuals, and the powers of officials in relation to the diagnosis, treatment, and containment of COVID-19. These include (i) creation of isolation wards in hospitals, (ii) containment measures in an area once positive cases are detected, and (iii) mandatory 14-day home isolation for asymptomatic air travellers from COVID-19 affected countries.
On March 15, the government also mandated a 14-day institutional isolation for all air travellers to prevent import of infections from other states. The state also initiated setting up of testing camps and conducting disinfectation drives in the border districts.
Travel and Movement
On March 15, the government notified a series of instructions that restricted the movement of people in the state. These include (i) shutting down of establishments, such as, educational institutions (up to Class 5), theatres, malls etc, and (ii) banning of inter-state travel for 15 days.
On March 16, the government announced additional restrictions till Mar 31, such as, closure of: (i) anganwadis and making alternate provision of dry ration for children at their homes, (ii) swimming pools, amusement parks, gyms, zoos, museums, bars, clubs etc, and (iii) all educational institutions, except the conduct of practical exams for class 10 and 12, and various entrance exams.
State borders were sealed off for road traffic, except for movement of essential commodities, from March 20 to March 31. Public transportation services, such as metro rail and inter-state private buses, were also suspended till March 31.
The Prime Minister asked the country to observe a Janta Curfew from 7 am to 9 pm on March 22,. The state government further extended this curfew to 5 am on March 23. Following this, the government immediately announced a state-wide lockdown from March 24 up to April 1.
On April 5, the government issued an advisory for the quarantine of migrant workers and the conduct of health camps for them.
Welfare Measures
On March 15, the government announced financial assistance of a total of Rs 60 crore to various departments, such as, health, transport etc, to take precautionary measures to combat COVID-19.
On March 24, the government announced the distribution of cash support of Rs 1,000 to all entitled family cardholders. Further, they were also eligible for free supply of essential commodities such as rice, dal, sugar, etc, during the month of April, through the Public Distribution System (PDS).
During the lockdown
A state-wide lockdown was announced from March 24 to April 1, followed by a nation-wide lockdown between March 25 and April 14. On April 13, the state-wide lockdown was extended up to April 30. This was followed by the extension of the nation-wide lockdown from April 15 to May 3. Under this, certain activities could be resumed after April 20.
Some of the key measures undertaken during the lockdown period are:
Travel and movement
Amidst the lockdown, on March 25, the government notified that establishments providing essential goods and services, which were allowed to operate. These included establishments such as (i) police forces, (ii) treasury, (iii) public utilities, (iv) banks, (v) media, (vi) telecommunications, and (vii) shops dealing with food, groceries etc. Further, on March 28, the government permitted a few agriculture-related establishments to operate, such as, Mandis, fertiliser shops, and agencies involved in procurement of agriculture products.
An Expert Committee formed by the state government to formulate guidelines for phased exit from lockdown after April 20, recommended the extension of the lockdown till May 3. Certain select activities were, however, permitted to resume operations from April 20 onwards. These include (i) MNREGA works related to irrigation and water conservation, (ii) rural construction projects on irrigation, dam safety, hospital buildings, roads and bridges, and (iii) state and central government offices at one-third capacity.
In view of rising number of cases, on April 24, stringent curfew orders were passed in the districts of (i) Chengalpattu, (ii) Kancheepuram, and (iii) Thiruvallur. The curfew will be imposed between April 26 and April 29, from 6 am to 9 pm, and with more stringent restrictions than under the ongoing nation-wide lockdown, such as, (i) petrol bunks to operate only between 8 am and 12 noon, and (ii) supermarkets and shops to remain shut.
Curfew orders were passed in 5 more districts. In Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai, curfew is imposed between 6 am and 9 pm from April 26 to April 29. In Salem and Tiruppur, curfew was imposed from April 26 to April 28.
Welfare Measures
On March 30, the government announced a cash assistance of Rs 1,500 per month to be credited into the bank accounts of differently-abled persons. It also announced that transgenders without ration cards, were eligible to receive 12kg of rice, 1kg of dal, and 1 litre of cooking oil, from fair price shops (FPS).
Further, a cash assistance of Rs 1,000 was announced for (i) all ration card holders through FPS, (ii) registered auto drivers and construction workers, (iii) members of TN Cine Welfare Board, and (iv) match factory workers.
On April 2, the government announced a concession package to manufacturers of COVID-19 related medical equipment, who will commence production before July 31, 2020. The package applied to both MSMEs and large manufacturers of equipment, such as, ventilators, Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) kits and medicines. Some of the concessions include: (i) 30% capital subsidy, upto Rs 20 crore, (ii) 100% stamp duty waiver, (iii) 6% interest subvention for capital loans for two quarters, (iv) commencement of manufacturing without prior approval, and (v) provision of necessary land on priority basis for short-term/long-term leases, etc.
Rs 50 lakh grant was announced to the families of frontline workers in the event of their unfortunate demise. If infected by COVID-19, they are eligible for Rs 2 lakh assistance towards treatment costs. In certain cases, if eligible, their kin would also receive a government job offer.
On April 7, the government announced that MLALAD funds could be utilised for COVID-19 prevention and containment activities. A total of Rs 1.25 crore can be utilised towards prevention, containment, treatment, and purchase of medical equipment, PPEs etc.
Health Measures
On April 2, the government released a list of designated COVID-19 hospitals in the state. Instructions were issued to refer all COVID-19 positive cases exclusively to these designated hospitals. However, willing citizens were also permitted to approach private hospitals, at their own cost. Private hospitals were further instructed to establish dedicated fever clinics to cope with the increasing load of flu and fever cases.
Amidst a rise in the number of cases, on April 4, the government issued instructions to: (i) avoid all kinds of religious gatherings, (ii) hospitals to not show religious bias in treating patients, and (iii) doctors to coordinate with the government and check in on the mental health of quarantined patients via video conferencing facilities such as Skype.
On April 5, the government issued cluster containment measures to stop the transmission, morbidity, and mortality associated with the further spread of COVID-19. This was in response to the large number of imported infections from the attendees of the Nizamuddin conference in Delhi.
Various guidelines were issued towards (i) treatment protocol of COVID-19 positive patients, (ii) appropriate management of suspect cases of COVID-19, (iii) dead body management, (iv) criteria for classification of hotspots, and (v) protocol for use of Rapid Antibody Tests in hotspot areas.
Resource Management: On March 27, the Chief Minister announced an additional COVID-19 related recruitment of doctors and lab technicians. The recruited members were to join within three days of the notification. On April 25, an additional 1,323 nurses were also recruited.
A two-month extension was announced to the tenures of medical professionals retiring on March 31 and April 30.
The government also instructed District Authorities to ensure the protection of doctors and other hospital staff who are being forcefully evicted from their houses by landlords. As a measure to develop immunity against COVID-19, the government, on April 25, also recommended providing Zinc and Vitamin tablets, and herbal powder to all personnel on frontline duty in containment areas.
Other Measures
Administrative: Eleven committees have been formed to coordinate implementation of various welfare programmes. In all districts, Crisis Management Committees have been formed under the district collector.
Education: The conduct of semester examinations in universities and colleges is postponed to the beginning of the next academic year, as and when the institutions reopen. Private colleges and schools were also instructed to not compel students/parents to pay pending dues for 2019-20 or advance fees for 2020-21.
Industry: On April 22, the government released a list of industries classified as continuous process industries. These are companies where the production lines are functioning 24/7. The list includes (i) refineries, (ii) large steel plants, (iii) large cement plants, (iv) sugar mills, (v) large paper mills, (vi) tyre manufacturers etc.
Technology: The government launched a Whatsapp Chat Bot for providing latest information and guidance related to COVID-19 in both Tamil & English.
For more information on the spread of COVID-19 and the central and state government response to the pandemic, please see here.
The percentage of the population living below the poverty line in India decreased to 22% in 2011-12 from 37% in 2004-05, according to data released by the Planning Commission in July 2013. This blog presents data on recent poverty estimates and goes on to provide a brief history of poverty estimation in the country. National and state-wise poverty estimates The Planning Commission estimates levels of poverty in the country on the basis of consumer expenditure surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) of the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.
The current methodology for poverty estimation is based on the recommendations of an Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (Tendulkar Committee) established in 2005. The Committee calculated poverty levels for the year 2004- 05. Poverty levels for subsequent years were calculated on the basis of the same methodology, after adjusting for the difference in prices due to inflation. Table 1 shows national poverty levels for the last twenty years, using methodology suggested by the Tendulkar Committee. According to these estimates, poverty declined at an average rate of 0.74 percentage points per year between 1993-94 and 2004-05, and at 2.18 percentage points per year between 2004-05 and 2011-12. Table 1: National poverty estimates (% below poverty line) (1993 - 2012)
| Year |
Rural |
Urban |
Total |
| 1993 – 94 |
50.1 |
31.8 |
45.3 |
| 2004 – 05 |
41.8 |
25.7 |
37.2 |
| 2009 – 10 |
33.8 |
20.9 |
29.8 |
| 2011 – 12 |
25.7 |
13.7 |
21.9 |
Source: Press Note on Poverty Estimates, 2011 – 12, Planning Commission; Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (2009) Planning Commission; PRS. State-wise data is also released by the NSSO. Table 2 shows state-wise poverty estimates for 2004-05 and 2011-12. It shows that while there is a decrease in poverty for almost all states, there are wide inter-state disparities in the percentage of poor below the poverty line and the rate at which poverty levels are declining. Table 2: State-wise poverty estimates (% below poverty line) (2004-05, 2011-12)
| State |
2004-05 |
2011-12 |
Decrease |
| Andhra Pradesh |
29.9 |
9.2 |
20.7 |
| Arunachal Pradesh |
31.1 |
34.7 |
-3.6 |
| Assam |
34.4 |
32 |
2.4 |
| Bihar |
54.4 |
33.7 |
20.7 |
| Chhattisgarh |
49.4 |
39.9 |
9.5 |
| Delhi |
13.1 |
9.9 |
3.2 |
| Goa |
25 |
5.1 |
19.9 |
| Gujarat |
31.8 |
16.6 |
15.2 |
| Haryana |
24.1 |
11.2 |
12.9 |
| Himachal Pradesh |
22.9 |
8.1 |
14.8 |
| Jammu and Kashmir |
13.2 |
10.4 |
2.8 |
| Jharkhand |
45.3 |
37 |
8.3 |
| Karnataka |
33.4 |
20.9 |
12.5 |
| Kerala |
19.7 |
7.1 |
12.6 |
| Madhya Pradesh |
48.6 |
31.7 |
16.9 |
| Maharashtra |
38.1 |
17.4 |
20.7 |
| Manipur |
38 |
36.9 |
1.1 |
| Meghalaya |
16.1 |
11.9 |
4.2 |
| Mizoram |
15.3 |
20.4 |
-5.1 |
| Nagaland |
9 |
18.9 |
-9.9 |
| Odisha |
57.2 |
32.6 |
24.6 |
| Puducherry |
14.1 |
9.7 |
4.4 |
| Punjab |
20.9 |
8.3 |
12.6 |
| Rajasthan |
34.4 |
14.7 |
19.7 |
| Sikkim |
31.1 |
8.2 |
22.9 |
| Tamil Nadu |
28.9 |
11.3 |
17.6 |
| Tripura |
40.6 |
14.1 |
26.5 |
| Uttar Pradesh |
40.9 |
29.4 |
11.5 |
| Uttarakhand |
32.7 |
11.3 |
21.4 |
| West Bengal |
34.3 |
20 |
14.3 |
| All Inda |
37.2 |
21.9 |
15.3 |
Source: Review of Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (2009) Planning Commission, Government of India; Press Note on Poverty Estimates, 2011 – 12 (2013) Planning Commission, Government of India; PRS. Note: A negative sign before the number in column four (decrease) indicates an increase in percentage of population below the poverty line. History of poverty estimation in India Pre independence poverty estimates: One of the earliest estimations of poverty was done by Dadabhai Naoroji in his book, ‘Poverty and the Un-British Rule in India’. He formulated a poverty line ranging from Rs 16 to Rs 35 per capita per year, based on 1867-68 prices. The poverty line proposed by him was based on the cost of a subsistence diet consisting of ‘rice or flour, dhal, mutton, vegetables, ghee, vegetable oil and salt’. Next, in 1938, the National Planning Committee (NPC) estimated a poverty line ranging from Rs 15 to Rs 20 per capita per month. Like the earlier method, the NPC also formulated its poverty line based on ‘a minimum standard of living perspective in which nutritional requirements are implicit’. In 1944, the authors of the ‘Bombay Plan’ (Thakurdas et al 1944) suggested a poverty line of Rs 75 per capita per year. Post independence poverty estimates: In 1962, the Planning Commission constituted a working group to estimate poverty nationally, and it formulated separate poverty lines for rural and urban areas – of Rs 20 and Rs 25 per capita per year respectively. VM Dandekar and N Rath made the first systematic assessment of poverty in India in 1971, based on National Sample Survey (NSS) data from 1960-61. They argued that the poverty line must be derived from the expenditure that was adequate to provide 2250 calories per day in both rural and urban areas. This generated debate on minimum calorie consumption norms while estimating poverty and variations in these norms based on age and sex. Alagh Committee (1979): In 1979, a task force constituted by the Planning Commission for the purpose of poverty estimation, chaired by YK Alagh, constructed a poverty line for rural and urban areas on the basis of nutritional requirements. Table 3 shows the nutritional requirements and related consumption expenditure based on 1973-74 price levels recommended by the task force. Poverty estimates for subsequent years were to be calculated by adjusting the price level for inflation. Table 3: Minimum calorie consumption and per capita consumption expenditure as per the 1979 Planning Commission task force on poverty estimation
| Area | Calories | Minimum consumption expenditure (Rs per capita per month) |
| Rural | 2400 | 49.1 |
| Urban | 2100 | 56.7 |
Source: Report of the Expert Group on Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor, 1993, Perspective Planning Division, Planning Commission; PRS Lakdawala Committee (1993): In 1993, an expert group constituted to review methodology for poverty estimation, chaired by DT Lakdawala, made the following suggestions: (i) consumption expenditure should be calculated based on calorie consumption as earlier; (ii) state specific poverty lines should be constructed and these should be updated using the Consumer Price Index of Industrial Workers (CPI-IW) in urban areas and Consumer Price Index of Agricultural Labour (CPI-AL) in rural areas; and (iii) discontinuation of ‘scaling’ of poverty estimates based on National Accounts Statistics. This assumes that the basket of goods and services used to calculate CPI-IW and CPI-AL reflect the consumption patterns of the poor. Tendulkar Committee (2009): In 2005, another expert group to review methodology for poverty estimation, chaired by Suresh Tendulkar, was constituted by the Planning Commission to address the following three shortcomings of the previous methods: (i) consumption patterns were linked to the 1973-74 poverty line baskets (PLBs) of goods and services, whereas there were significant changes in the consumption patterns of the poor since that time, which were not reflected in the poverty estimates; (ii) there were issues with the adjustment of prices for inflation, both spatially (across regions) and temporally (across time); and (iii) earlier poverty lines assumed that health and education would be provided by the State and formulated poverty lines accordingly.[1] It recommended four major changes: (i) a shift away from calorie consumption based poverty estimation; (ii) a uniform poverty line basket (PLB) across rural and urban India; (iii) a change in the price adjustment procedure to correct spatial and temporal issues with price adjustment; and (iv) incorporation of private expenditure on health and education while estimating poverty. The Committee recommended using Mixed Reference Period (MRP) based estimates, as opposed to Uniform Reference Period (URP) based estimates that were used in earlier methods for estimating poverty.[2] It based its calculations on the consumption of the following items: cereal, pulses, milk, edible oil, non-vegetarian items, vegetables, fresh fruits, dry fruits, sugar, salt & spices, other food, intoxicants, fuel, clothing, footwear, education, medical (non-institutional and institutional), entertainment, personal & toilet goods, other goods, other services and durables. The Committee computed new poverty lines for rural and urban areas of each state. To do this, it used data on value and quantity consumed of the items mentioned above by the population that was classified as poor by the previous urban poverty line. It concluded that the all India poverty line was Rs 446.68 per capita per month in rural areas and Rs 578.80 per capita per month in urban areas in 2004-05. The following table outlines the manner in which the percentage of population below the poverty line changed after the application of the Tendulkar Committee’s methodology. Table 4: Percentage of population below poverty line calculated by the Lakdawala Committee and the Tendulkar Committee for the year 2004-05
| Committee |
Rural |
Urban |
Total |
| Lakdawala Committee |
28.3 |
25.7 |
27.5 |
| Tendulkar Committee |
41.8 |
27.5 |
37.2 |
Source: Report of the Expert Group on Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor, 1993, Perspective Planning Division, Planning Commission; Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty, 2009, Planning Commission; PRS The Committee also recommended a new method of updating poverty lines, adjusting for changes in prices and patterns of consumption, using the consumption basket of people close to the poverty line. Thus, the estimates released in 2009-10 and 2011-12 use this method instead of using indices derived from the CPI-AL for rural areas and CPI-IW for urban areas as was done earlier. Table 5 outlines the poverty lines computed using the Tendulkar Committee methodology for the years 2004-05, 2009-10 and 2011-12. Table 5: National poverty lines (in Rs per capita per month) for the years 2004-05, 2009-10 and 2011-12
| Year |
Rural |
Urban |
| 2004-05 |
446.7 |
578.8 |
| 2009-10 |
672.8 |
859.6 |
| 2011-12 |
816.0 |
1000.0 |
Source: Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (2009) Planning Commission; Poverty Estimates 2009-10 and Poverty Estimates 2011-12, Planning Commission; PRS Rangarajan Committee: In 2012, the Planning Commission constituted a new expert panel on poverty estimation, chaired by C Rangarajan with the following key objectives: (i) to provide an alternate method to estimate poverty levels and examine whether poverty lines should be fixed solely in terms of a consumption basket or if other criteria are also relevant; (ii) to examine divergence between the consumption estimates based on the NSSO methodology and those emerging from the National Accounts aggregates; (iii) to review international poverty estimation methods and indicate whether based on these, a particular method for empirical poverty estimation can be developed in India, and (iv) to recommend how these estimates of poverty can be linked to eligibility and entitlements under the various schemes of the Government of India. The Committee is expected to submit its report by 2014.
[1] While private expenditure on education and health was covered in the base year 1973-74, no account was taken of either the increase in the proportion of these in total expenditure over time or of their proper representation in available price indices.
[2] Under the URP method, respondents are asked to detail consumption over the previous 30 days; whereas under the MRP method five low-frequency items (clothing, footwear, durables, education and institutional health expenditure) are surveyed over the previous 365 days, and all other items over the previous 30 days.
