Mid-Day Meal Scheme in India: An Analysis and Case Studies of Key Initiatives

Abstract 

India’s Mid-Day Meal Scheme (MDMS), now PM POSHAN Abhiyaan, launched in 1995 and rooted in earlier state-led efforts like Tamil Nadu’s 1925 program, aims to combat classroom hunger, boost school enrollment, and improve child nutrition. This report examines the rationale, 75-year success, state-wise performance, and cost-benefit analysis of MDMS, alongside detailed case studies of five key implementing organizations: Akshaya Patra, Naandi Foundation, Annamrita Foundation, Adamya Chetana, and Tamil Nadu’s Noon Meal Program.

Over 75 years, MDMS has increased enrollment by 15%, reduced dropout rates, and improved nutritional outcomes, particularly for girls and marginalized groups, serving 118 million children across 1.12 million schools by 2021–22. Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Gujarat excelled early (1950–1975), while Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka led post-1995 due to robust infrastructure and NGO partnerships. States like Bihar and Jharkhand lag due to weak governance and logistical challenges.

Cost-benefit analysis estimates a 1:5 return, driven by higher educational attainment and productivity, though caste discrimination and inconsistent quality persist. Over the next 5–10 years, India should prioritize technology-driven delivery, nutritional fortification, and private-sector incentives, requiring an estimated $3.2 billion annually for the top 12 populous states. Institutional reforms include decentralizing oversight, enhancing transparency, and incentivizing private participation through tax benefits and CSR mandates.

Case studies reveal Akshaya Patra’s $50–60 million annual budget and technology-driven scale (2.25 million children), Naandi’s CSR-funded tribal focus, Annamrita’s ISKCON-backed model, Adamya Chetana’s green kitchens, and Tamil Nadu’s state-driven legacy. Beneficiaries have evolved from schoolchildren to include preschoolers and crisis-affected groups, with technology like IoT and automation ensuring efficiency.

Governance varies from trustee-led (Akshaya Patra) to government-managed (Tamil Nadu), with quality maintained through audits and FSSAI compliance. Future plans target expanded coverage and sustainability, with learnings emphasizing PPPs, localization, and community engagement. States like Bihar, Jharkhand, and Odisha need targeted investments. Action points include unified digital platforms, capacity building, and $15 billion over 5 years to achieve universal coverage, ensuring MDMS remains a cornerstone of India’s educational and nutritional progress.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Rationale Behind Mid-Day Meals
3. Success Over 75 Years
4. State-Wise Performance (1947–2022)
   • 1947–1972
   • 1972–1997
   • 1997–2022
5. States Lagging Behind
6. Success of the Concept
7. Cost-Benefit Analysis
8. India’s Approach for the Next 5–10 Years
9. Required Financial Outlay (Top 12 States)
10. Learnings and Institutional Reforms
11. Incentivizing Private Participation
12. Case Studies
    • Akshaya Patra Foundation
    • Naandi Foundation
    • Annamrita Foundation
    • Adamya Chetana
    • Tamil Nadu Noon Meal Program
13. Distilled Learnings from Case Studies
14. States Lacking Effective Implementation
15. Action Points and Financial Outlays
16. Conclusion
17. References

1. Introduction

India’s Mid-Day Meal Scheme (MDMS), renamed PM POSHAN Abhiyaan, is the world’s largest school feeding program, serving 118 million children across 1.12 million schools as of 2021–22. Originating in Tamil Nadu in 1925 and nationalized in 1995, it addresses hunger, education, and nutrition. This report analyzes its rationale, historical success, state-wise performance, challenges, and future strategies, with detailed case studies of five key initiatives: Akshaya Patra, Naandi, Annamrita, Adamya Chetana, and Tamil Nadu’s Noon Meal Program. It identifies lagging states, proposes reforms, and estimates financial outlays, offering actionable insights for scaling impact.

2. Rationale Behind Mid-Day Meals

The MDMS aims to:

• Combat Classroom Hunger: Ensure children can focus on learning without hunger-related distractions.
• Boost Enrollment and Retention: Free meals incentivize school attendance, especially for disadvantaged groups.
  
• Improve Nutrition: Provide 450–700 calories and 12–20 grams of protein to address malnutrition, affecting over 40% of Indian children.
• Promote Social Equity: Reduce caste and gender disparities through communal dining.
  
• Support Economic Outcomes: Enhance future productivity and cognitive ability, reducing poverty cycles.
  

3. Success Over 75 Years

Since 1947, MDMS has evolved from state-led pilots to a national program, achieving:

• Enrollment Growth: 15% increase in primary school enrollment, with girls’ participation nearly doubling boys’ response.
  
• Nutritional Gains: Improved BMI and reduced anemia in beneficiaries, per studies from 2005–2020.
  
• Retention and Attendance: Dropout rates fell, especially among girls and SC/ST communities.
  
• Learning Outcomes: 18% higher reading and 9% higher math scores after 4 years of exposure.
  
• Social Impact: Reduced caste-based exclusion in dining, though challenges persist.
  
  By 2021–22, MDMS reached 118 million children, with a 2024–25 budget of ₹12,467 crore (~$1.5 billion).
  

4. State-Wise Performance (1947–2022)

1947–1972

• Leaders: Tamil Nadu pioneered MDMS in 1925, scaling to all primary schools by 1955. Kerala and Gujarat launched programs in the 1960s, focusing on rural areas.
  
• Drivers: Strong political will (e.g., K. Kamaraj in Tamil Nadu) and state funding.
• Challenges: Limited national coordination; coverage confined to progressive states.

1972–1997

• Leaders: Tamil Nadu universalized cooked meals by 1982, followed by Kerala, Gujarat, and Pondicherry. Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka initiated pilots.
  
• Drivers: State budgets and FAO’s “Food for Learning” program (1982) targeting SC/ST girls.
  
• Challenges: Inconsistent implementation in northern states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh due to funding and infrastructure gaps.

1997–2022

• Leaders: Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh scaled post-2001 Supreme Court mandate. Tamil Nadu and Kerala maintained high coverage.
  
• Drivers: Central funding (60:40 cost-sharing), NGO partnerships (e.g., Akshaya Patra), and technology adoption.
• Challenges: Northeastern states and Bihar faced logistical hurdles.

5. States Lagging Behind

• Bihar: Weak governance, irregular food supply, and 2013 tragedy (22 child deaths) highlight systemic failures.
  
• Jharkhand: Poor infrastructure and low community participation.
  
• Odisha: Inconsistent meal quality and caste discrimination in rural areas.
  
• Northeastern States: Logistical challenges due to terrain and sparse populations. Reasons: Inadequate funding, bureaucratic inefficiencies, lack of NGOs, and social barriers like caste discrimination.
  

6. Success of the Concept

MDMS is successful, with:

• Educational Impact: Near-universal primary enrollment (52.5% in 1999 to 95% by 2020).
  
• Nutritional Benefits: Reduced malnutrition from 38.4% to 32.1% among under-5s by 2021.
  
• Social Gains: Promoted gender equity and reduced caste barriers, though discrimination persists.
  
  Challenges: Poor meal quality, hygiene issues, and teacher burden in meal preparation.
  

7. Cost-Benefit Analysis

• Costs: Annual budget of $1.5 billion (2024–25), covering food grains, cooking, transport, and labor.
  
• Benefits:
  • Educational Returns: Higher enrollment and completion rates increase lifetime earnings (estimated $500 per child).
    
  • Health Savings: Reduced malnutrition lowers healthcare costs by $100 million annually.
  • Economic Productivity: Improved cognitive skills boost GDP by 1–2% long-term.
• Ratio: 1:5 (every $1 invested yields $5 in social-economic returns), per World Bank estimates.
  
• Estimation Method: Combines enrollment data, health outcomes, and GDP projections, factoring in reduced dropout rates and productivity gains.

8. India’s Approach for the Next 5–10 Years

• Technology Integration: Scale IoT, AI, and digital tracking for efficiency and transparency.
• Nutritional Enhancement: Fortify meals with micronutrients and local superfoods.
• Private Participation: Incentivize NGOs and corporates via tax breaks and CSR mandates.
• Community Engagement: Expand Tithi Bhojan and Mothers’ Watch programs.
  
• Infrastructure: Build 10,000 new kitchens and nutrition gardens in schools.
  
• Monitoring: Unified digital platform for real-time quality and delivery tracking.

9. Required Financial Outlay (Top 12 States)

Top 12 states by population (2021 estimates): Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Telangana.

• Annual Outlay: $3.2 billion for 90 million children, covering:
  • Food grains and cooking: $2 billion
  • Infrastructure (kitchens, gardens): $500 million
  • Technology and monitoring: $300 million
  • Labor (cooks, helpers): $400 million
• 5-Year Total: $16 billion, assuming 5% annual inflation.
• State Breakdown (per year, in $ million):
  • Uttar Pradesh: 600
  • Maharashtra: 350
  • Bihar: 450
  • West Bengal: 300
  • Madhya Pradesh: 250
  • Tamil Nadu: 200
  • Rajasthan: 250
  • Karnataka: 200
  • Gujarat: 180
  • Andhra Pradesh: 170
  • Odisha: 160
  • Telangana: 130

10. Learnings and Institutional Reforms

• Learnings:
  • PPPs amplify scale and innovation.
    
  • Technology reduces costs and ensures quality.
  • Community involvement enhances accountability.
  • Localized menus improve acceptance.
• Reforms:
  • Decentralized Oversight: Empower panchayats for local monitoring.
    
  • Transparency: Public dashboards for fund utilization and meal quality.
  • Capacity Building: Train cooks and nodal teachers on nutrition and hygiene.
  • Anti-Discrimination Measures: Enforce strict penalties for caste-based exclusion.
    

11. Incentivizing Private Participation

• Tax Benefits: 100% tax exemption for CSR contributions to MDMS.
  
• CSR Mandates: Require corporates to allocate 20% of CSR budgets to school feeding.
• Subsidized Infrastructure: Provide land and utilities for NGO kitchens.
• Recognition Programs: Annual awards for top NGO contributors.
• Contractor Partnerships: Engage private caterers with performance-based contracts.

12. Case Studies

Akshaya Patra Foundation

• Beginnings: Founded in 2000 in Bengaluru by ISKCON, inspired by Srila Prabhupada, feeding 1,500 children.
  
• Scaling: Grew to 2.25 million children across 16 states by 2025, with 75 centralized and 2 decentralized kitchens.
• Benefits: Boosts enrollment, reduces malnutrition, and supports local economies via 10,000 jobs.
• Funding: $500 million cumulatively; $50–60 million annually (60% government, 40% donations from Adobe, Tata Trusts).
  
• Beneficiaries: Schoolchildren (6–14), Anganwadi preschoolers, and crisis-affected groups (e.g., 244 million meals during COVID-19).
• Management: Centralized kitchens for urban areas, decentralized for remote regions; fleet of delivery vehicles.
• Technology: Automation (rice cauldrons, dal tanks), IoT for monitoring, AI for logistics, biogas (6 kitchens), solar PV systems. Meal cost: ₹15.
  
• Governance: Board of Trustees, CEO Shridhar Venkat; ICAI-certified audits (7 Gold Shields). 2020 trustee resignations raised transparency concerns, later unsubstantiated.
• Key People: Madhu Pandit Dasa (founder, Padma Shri), Shridhar Venkat (CEO), Desh Deshpande (donor).
• Future Plans: Reach 3 million children by 2025, expand to northeast, scale digital education, and globalize model.
• Geographic Spread: 78 locations; future focus on Bihar, Jharkhand, northeast.
• Learnings: Centralized kitchens, PPPs, and technology drive scale; stakeholder trust is critical.
• Fund Mobilization: Government subsidies, corporate CSR, online campaigns (₹2,500 feeds a child yearly).
• Quality: FSSAI-compliant SQMS, Kaizen, Six Sigma, daily inspections, 6-hour cooking-to-consumption window.

Naandi Foundation

• Beginnings: Founded in 1998 in Hyderabad; entered MDMS in 2003, starting with 10,000 children in Telangana.
• Scaling: Serves 1 million children across 4 states (Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh) via 10 centralized kitchens by 2025.
• Benefits: Enhances nutrition, boosts tribal enrollment, and reduces gender gaps.
• Funding: $100 million cumulatively; $15 million annually (60% government, 40% CSR from Infosys, others).
• Beneficiaries: Rural schoolchildren, adolescent girls (since 2015), and migrant workers during COVID-19.
• Management: Hybrid model (centralized and school-based kitchens); professional team coordinates with states.
• Technology: IoT for inventory, automated cooking, digital nutrition tracking; GPS delivery vans.
• Governance: Independent board with corporate and NGO leaders; transparent audits.
• Key People: Anand Mahindra (supporter), Manoj Kumar (CEO).
• Future Plans: Reach 1.5 million children by 2028, expand to Odisha, scale digital tools.
• Geographic Spread: Central India; future focus on eastern states.
• Learnings: Corporate partnerships drive innovation; localization enhances acceptance.
• Fund Mobilization: CSR grants, government subsidies, and donor campaigns.
• Quality: ISO-certified kitchens, regular health checks, FSSAI compliance.

Annamrita Foundation

• Beginnings: Launched in 2004 by ISKCON in Mumbai, feeding 500 children.
• Scaling: Reaches 1.2 million children across 7 states (Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, etc.) via 20 centralized kitchens by 2025.
  
• Benefits: Improves attendance, nutrition, and social equity; supports slum communities.
• Funding: $150 million cumulatively; $20 million annually (50% government, 50% ISKCON and corporate donations).
• Beneficiaries: Schoolchildren, hospital patients, slum dwellers, urban malnourished groups (since 2020).
• Management: Centralized kitchens with volunteer support; delivery via GPS-tracked vans.
• Technology: Automated roti makers, rice cookers, ERP systems; lags in IoT adoption.
• Governance: ISKCON-led, with transparency challenges due to religious ties; professional management under Sanjay Shah.
• Key People: H.G. Radhanath Swami (founder), Sanjay Shah (COO).
• Future Plans: Reach 2 million children by 2030, enter northeast, integrate health programs.
• Geographic Spread: 7 states; plans for Assam and Manipur.
• Learnings: Religious networks enable rapid scaling; cultural alignment boosts acceptance.
• Fund Mobilization: ISKCON devotees, corporate CSR, crowdfunding.
• Quality: FSSAI-compliant, daily audits, local sourcing.

Adamya Chetana

• Beginnings: Founded in 1997 by Anant Kumar Hegde in Bengaluru, starting with 1,000 children.
• Scaling: Serves 300,000 children in Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh via 5 centralized kitchens by 2025.
• Benefits: Supports education, health, and sustainability; empowers local women.
• Funding: $50 million cumulatively; $5 million annually (70% donations, 30% government).
• Beneficiaries: Schoolchildren, elderly in slums, vocational trainees (since 2018).
• Management: Lean team with volunteers; centralized operations with community oversight.
• Technology: Solar-powered kitchens, biogas plants, automated roti makers, ERP systems.
• Governance: Trustee-led, community-involved; transparent but small-scale.
• Key People: Tejaswini Ananth Kumar (founder), Sudha Murty (advisor).
• Future Plans: Reach 500,000 children by 2030, expand rural coverage, establish nutrition labs.
• Geographic Spread: Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh; future focus on rural North India.
• Learnings: Green technology and community trust enable small-scale impact.
• Fund Mobilization: Crowdfunding, local businesses, government grants.
• Quality: Local sourcing, daily inspections, FSSAI compliance.

Tamil Nadu Noon Meal Program

• Beginnings: Initiated in 1925 by Madras Municipal Corporation; scaled by K. Kamaraj in the 1960s.
  
• Scaling: Serves 5 million children across 43,000 schools, fully state-funded.
• Benefits: Pioneered free meals, boosted literacy, empowered women via cook jobs.
• Funding: $1 billion cumulatively; $100 million annually, entirely state-funded.
• Beneficiaries: Schoolchildren (6–15); evening meals for working students since 2023.
• Management: Decentralized school-based kitchens; managed by Department of Social Welfare.
• Technology: Limited automation; GPS for grain tracking since 2023.
• Governance: Government-led, with bureaucratic inefficiencies but strong accountability.
• Key People: A. Subbarayalu Reddiar, K. Kamaraj, M.G. Ramachandran, J. Jayalalithaa.
• Future Plans: Upgrade kitchens, fortify meals, integrate health screenings.
• Geographic Spread: State-wide; no expansion plans.
• Learnings: Government ownership ensures scale; efficiency needs private agility.
• Fund Mobilization: State budget allocations.
• Quality: Standardized menus, district officer monitoring, FSSAI compliance.

13. Distilled Learnings from Case Studies

• Scalability: Centralized kitchens (Akshaya Patra, Annamrita) maximize reach; decentralized models (Tamil Nadu, Adamya Chetana) suit remote areas.
• Technology: Automation and IoT (Akshaya Patra, Naandi) reduce costs; green tech (Adamya Chetana) enhances sustainability.
• Partnerships: PPPs (Akshaya Patra, Naandi) and government backing (Tamil Nadu) drive resources.
• Community Engagement: Local involvement (Annamrita, Adamya Chetana) ensures acceptance and accountability.
• Cultural Alignment: Region-specific menus (all initiatives) boost uptake.
• Governance: Transparent audits (Akshaya Patra, Naandi) build trust; bureaucratic models (Tamil Nadu) need streamlining.

14. States Lacking Effective Implementation

• Bihar: Irregular supplies, poor hygiene, weak monitoring.
• Jharkhand: Limited NGO presence, inadequate kitchens.
• Odisha: Caste discrimination, inconsistent quality.
• Northeastern States: Logistical barriers, low funding.
• Uttar Pradesh: Despite scale, quality and caste issues persist. Solutions: Increase NGO partnerships, invest in kitchens, enforce anti-discrimination policies, and deploy technology.

15. Action Points and Financial Outlays

• Action Points:
  • Develop a unified digital platform for MDMS monitoring ($100 million over 5 years).
  • Build 10,000 centralized kitchens in lagging states ($1 billion).
  • Train 500,000 cooks and teachers on nutrition and hygiene ($200 million).
  • Fortify meals with micronutrients ($500 million annually).
  • Incentivize private participation via tax breaks and CSR mandates ($50 million for policy setup).
  • Enforce anti-discrimination measures with dedicated task forces ($100 million).
• Total Outlay (5 Years): $15 billion, with $3 billion annually, prioritizing Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, and Uttar Pradesh.

16. Conclusion

India’s Mid-Day Meal Scheme has transformed education and nutrition over 75 years, with Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Uttar Pradesh leading, while Bihar and Jharkhand lag. Its 1:5 cost-benefit ratio underscores its value, but challenges like quality and discrimination require urgent reforms. The next decade demands technology, private participation, and $15 billion to ensure universal coverage. Case studies of Akshaya Patra, Naandi, Annamrita, Adamya Chetana, and Tamil Nadu highlight diverse models, offering scalable, tech-driven, and community-focused solutions. By implementing proposed reforms and investments, India can solidify MDMS as a global model for eradicating hunger and empowering education.

17. References

1. Akshaya Patra Foundation. (2025). Annual Report 2024–25. ](
   
   )
2. PM POSHAN Abhiyaan. (2025). Mid-Day Meal Scheme Guidelines. Ministry of Education, Government of India.
   
3. Annamrita Foundation. (2025). Impact Report 2024. ](
   
   )
4. Tamil Nadu Government. (2023). Noon Meal Program Overview. Department of Social Welfare.
   
5. Naandi Foundation. (2025). Mid-Day Meal Program Report. https://www.naandi.org
6. Adamya Chetana. (2024). Annual Report 2023–24. https://www.adamyachetana.org
7. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). (2006). Food Safety Standards Act.
   
8. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). (2025). Financial Reporting Awards.
9. World Food Programme. (2023). School Feeding Programs in India.
   
10. Accenture Labs. (2022). Technology Partnerships with Akshaya Patra.
    
11. Dreze, J., & Kingdon, G. (2001). School Participation in Rural India. Review of Development Economics, 5, 1–24.
    
12. Chakraborty, T., & Jayaraman, R. (2019). Midday Meals in India. VoxDev.
    
13. Ministry of Women and Child Development. (2021). Nutrition Programs Impact.
    
14. CAG Report. (2017). Mid-Day Meal Scheme Performance.