In light of recent debates surrounding the implementation of the Mid Day Meal Scheme (MDMS) in certain states, it is useful to understand the basic features of the scheme. The MDMS is the world’s largest school meal programme and reaches an estimated 12 crore children across 12 lakh schools in India. A brief introduction follows, outlining the key objectives and provisions of the scheme; modes of financing; monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and issues with implementation of the scheme. Examples of 'best practices' and major recommendations made by the Planning Commission to improve the implementation of the scheme are also mentioned. Provisions:  The MDMS emerged out of the National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education (NP – NSPE), a centrally sponsored scheme formulated in 1995 to improve enrollment, attendance and retention by providing free food grains to government run primary schools. In 2002, the Supreme Court directed the government to provide cooked mid day meals (as opposed to providing dry rations) in all government and government aided primary schools.[1] Calorie norms for the meals have been regularly revised starting from 300 calories in 2004, when the scheme was relaunched as the Mid Day Meal Scheme. At present the MDMS provides children in government aided schools and education centres a cooked meal for a minimum of 200 days.[2] Table 1 outlines the prescribed nutritional content of the meals. Table 1: Prescribed nutritional content for mid day meals 

Item Primary (grade 1-5) Upper Primary(grade 6-8)
Calories 450 700
Protein (in grams) 12 20

Source: Annual Report, 2011 – 12, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India; PRS. Objectives: The key objectives of the MDMS are to address the issues of hunger and education in schools by serving hot cooked meals; improve the nutritional status of children and improve enrollment, attendance and retention rates in schools and other education centres. Finances: The cost of the MDMS is shared between the central and state governments. The central government provides free food grains to the states. The cost of cooking, infrastructure development, transportation of food grains and payment of honorarium to cooks and helpers is shared by the centre with the state governments. The central government provides a greater share of funds. The contribution of state governments differs from state to state. Table 2 outlines the key areas of expenditure incurred by the central government under the MDMS for the year 2012 – 2013. Table 2: Key areas of expenditure in the MDMS (2012 - 2013)

Area of expenditure                                      Percentage of total cost allocated
Cooking cost 53
Cook / helper 20
Cost of food grain 14
Transportation assistance 2
Management monitoring and evaluation 2
Non recurring costs 10

Source: Ministry of Human Resource Development; Fourth NSCM Committee meeting, August 24, 2012; PRS. Monitoring and Evaluation: There are some inter state variations in the monitoring and evaluation mechanisms of the MDMS.  A National Steering cum Monitoring Committee and a Programme Approval Board have been established at the national level, to monitor the programme, conduct impact assessments, coordinate between state governments and provide policy advice to central and state governments. Review Missions consisting of representatives from central and state governments and non governmental agencies have been established. In addition, independent monitoring institutions such as state universities and research institutions monitor the implementation of the scheme. At the state level, a three tier monitoring mechanism exists in the form of state, district and block level steering cum monitoring committees. Gram panchayats and municipalities are responsible for day to day supervision and may assign the supervision of the programme at the school level to the Village Education Committee, School Management and Development Committee or Parent Teacher Association. Key issues with implementation: While there is significant inter-state variation in the implementation of the MDSM, there are some common concerns with the implementation of the scheme. Some of the concerns highlighted by the Ministry for Human Resource Development based on progress reports submitted by the states in 2012 are detailed in Table 3. Table 3: Key implementation issues in the MDMS

Issue State(s) where these problems have been reported
Irregularity in serving meals Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Arunachal Pradesh
Irregularity in supply of food grains to schools Orissa, Maharashtra, Tripura, Karnataka, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh
Caste based discrimination in serving of food Orissa, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh
Poor quality of food Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, Chhattisgarh
Poor coverage under School Health Programme Orissa, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh
Poor infrastructure (kitchen sheds in particular) Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Gujarat, Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Orissa
Poor hygiene Delhi, Rajasthan, Puducherry,
Poor community participation Most states – Delhi, Jharkhand, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh in particular

Source: Ministry of Human Resource Development; PRS. Best practices: Several state governments have evolved practices to improve the implementation of the MDMS in their states. These include involving mothers of students in implementation of the scheme in Uttarakhand and Jharkhand; creation of kitchen gardens, i.e., food is grown in the premises of the school, in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab and West Bengal; construction of dining halls in Tamil Nadu; and increased community participation in the implementation of the scheme Gujarat. More information is available here. Planning Commission evaluation of MDMS: In 2010, a Planning Commission evaluation of the MDMS made the following recommendations to improve implementation of the scheme: i. Steering cum monitoring committees at the district and block levels should be made more effective. ii. Food grains must be delivered directly to the school by the PDS dealer. iii. The key implementation authority must be made responsible for cooking, serving food and cleaning utensils, and school staff should have a supervisory role.  The authority should consist of local women’s self help groups or mothers of children studying in the schools. iv. Given the fluctuating cost of food grains, a review of the funds allocated to the key implementation authority must be done at least once in 6 months. v. Services might be delivered through private providers under a public private partnership model, as has been done in Andhra Pradesh.


[1] PUCL vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 196 of 2001. [2] The following institutions are covered: Government and government aided schools, National Child Labour Project (NCLP) schools, Education Guarantee Scheme (EGS) and Alternative and Innovative Education (AIE) centres including Madrasas and Maqtabs supported under the SSA

The Election Commission has announced the schedule for the election of the President of India.  The last date for nominations is June 30, elections will be held on July 19, and counting will take place on July 22.  The BJD and AIADMK have proposed the name of Mr. P.A. Sangma.  The Samajwadi Party and Trinamool Congress have suggested three names.  Other parties or alliances have not announced any contenders.  Our calculations show that no single party or alliance has the numbers to unilaterally elect candidates of its choice. A candidate will need 5,48,507 votes to be elected as the President.  If the UPA were to vote as a consolidated block, its vote tally would reach 4,49,847 (41% of the total votes).  Among the Congress allies, Trinamool holds the largest number of votes (47,898). If Trinamool decides to support some other candidate, the UPA tally will fall to 4,01,949 votes (37% of the total). The votes held by the major alliances are given in the table below:

Coalition Value of votes Percentage of total votes
UPA

4,49,847

41.0%

NDA

3,03,912

27.7%

Left

52,282

4.8%

Bahujan Samaj Party

43,723

4.0%

Samajwadi Party

68,943

6.3%

Biju Janata Dal

30,215

2.8%

AIADMK

36,216

3.3%

Others

1,11,874

10.2%

Total

10,97,012

 
Minimum required to be elected

5,48,507

 

  A detailed break-up of votes held by each party is given in the table below:

Party Value of votes Percentage of total votes
Indian National Congress

3,31,855

30.30%

Bharatiya Janata Party

2,32,454

21.20%

Samajwadi Party

68,943

6.30%

All India Trinamool Congress

47,898

4.40%

Bahujan Samaj Party

43,723

4.00%

Janata Dal (United)

41,574

3.80%

All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK)

36,216

3.30%

Communist Party of India (Marxist)

35,734

3.30%

Biju Janata Dal

30,215

2.80%

Nationalist Congress Party

24,058

2.20%

Independent

23,830

2.20%

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)

21,780

2.00%

Telugu Desam Party

21,256

1.90%

Shiv Sena

18,320

1.70%

Shiromani Akali Dal

11,564

1.10%

Communist Party of India

9,758

0.90%

Rashtriya Janata Dal

8,816

0.80%

Others

7,420

0.70%

Janata Dal (Secular)

6,138

0.60%

Jammu and Kashmir National Conference

5,556

0.50%

Rashtriya Lok Dal

5,412

0.50%

Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhaga (DMDK)

5,104

0.50%

Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

4,584

0.40%

Muslim League Kerala State Committee

4,456

0.40%

Indian National Lok Dal

4,068

0.40%

All India Forward Bloc

3,961

0.40%

Jharkhand Vikas Morcha

3,352

0.30%

Asom Gana Parishad

3,284

0.30%

Telangana Rashtra Samiti

3,044

0.30%

Revolutionary Socialist Party

2,829

0.30%

Bodoland People's Front

2,808

0.30%

All India United Democratic Front

2,796

0.30%

Praja Rajyam Party

2,664

0.20%

Maharashtra Navnirman Sena

2,275

0.20%

Kerala Congress (M)

2,076

0.20%

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen

1,744

0.20%

Nagaland People's Front

1,722

0.20%

Sikkim Democratic Front

1,640

0.10%

Peoples Democratic Party

1,512

0.10%

Bahujan Vikas Aaghadi

1,058

0.10%

Lok Janasakti Party

957

0.10%

All Jharkhand Students Union

880

0.10%

Haryana Janhit Congress

820

0.10%

Mizo National Front

732

0.10%

Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

708

0.10%

Swabhimani Paksha

708

0.10%

Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi

708

0.10%

YSR Congress Party

708

0.10%

Peasants and Workers Party

700

0.10%

Pattali Makkal Katchi

528

0.00%

Manithaneya Makkal Katch

352

0.00%

Puthiya Tamilaga

352

0.00%

All India NR Congress

240

0.00%

J&K National Panthers Party

216

0.00%

Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)

176

0.00%

United Democratic Party

153

0.00%

Lok Satta Party

148

0.00%

Loktantrik Samajwadi Party

129

0.00%

J&K Democratic Party Nationalist

72

0.00%

People's Democratic Front

72

0.00%

Uttarakhand Kranti Dal

64

0.00%

Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party

60

0.00%

People's Party of Arunachal

32

0.00%

Total

10,97,012

 

Notes: The electoral  college for the Presidential election consists of the elected members of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and all Legislative Assemblies. The winning candidate must secure at least 50% of the total value of votes polled.  Each MP/ MLA’s vote has a pre-determined value based on the population they represent. For instance, an MP’s vote has a value of 708, an MLA from UP has a vote value of 208 and an MLA from Sikkim has a vote value of 7 (Note that all MPs, irrespective of the constituency or State they represent, have equal vote value). Parties in various coalitions: UPA: Congress, Trinamool, DMK, NCP,Rashtriya Lok Dal, J&K National Conference, Muslim League Kerala State Committee, Kerala Congress (M), All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, Sikkim Democratic Front, Praja Rajyam Party, Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi NDA: BJP, JD(U), Shiv Sena, Shiromani Akali Dal, Janata Party Left: CPI(M), CPI, Revolutionary Socialist Party, All India Forward Bloc