Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, N.V. Ramana, JJ.
Swaraj Abhiyan – (I) – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 857 of 2015
Decided On : 11-05-2016
(2015) 2 SCC 130; (1988) 4 SCC 226 – Relied upon
(b) Administration of justice – Judicial activism – PIL – Result is taken differently by different people – Those who benefit from shower praise and those who are at the receiving end criticize it. (Para 15)
© Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Section 11, 47 – The Act provides for risk assessment and risk management in the event of a disaster – Drought is a disaster – Risk assessment and risk management as well as crisis management of a drought falls completely within the purview of the Act – National Plan required to be drawn up u/s 11 not drawn – National Disaster Mitigation Fund u/s 47 also not yet set up – Union of India publishing Manual for Drought Management and National Disaster Management Guidelines for Management of Drought – Guidelines is follow-up to the Manual – Documents not binding, mere guidelines to be followed – Resulting in observance in the breach of the Manual and the Guidelines. (Para 33, 34, 36, 38, 52)
(d) Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Section 47 – Manual for Drought Management classifying fraught into three categories – Meteorological drought, hydrological drought and agricultural drought – Also promoting a new system of draught management – Not yet accepted universally. (Para 40, 41)
(e) Draught – Declaration of – Emphasis on (i) Rainfall deficiency; (ii) Extent of area sown; (iii) Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, and (iv) Moisture Adequacy Index – National Disaster Management Guidelines: Management of Drought – A follow-up to the Manual – Declaration of drought not a complicated affair but a manageable exercise – Appropriate conclusion can be scientifically drawn with the available data – Nevertheless, not a judicially manageable exercise although Courts may step in under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 44, 52, 55)
(f) Draught – 10 out of 28 States declared draught affected – Bihar and Haryana not declaring any part as draught affected – Gujarat declaring part of the State as draught affected very late – Between 40 crores and above 50 crores people affected by draught – The ten States completed their assessment exercise between August 2015 and December 2015 but Gujarat began its exercise only in March 2016 – Delayed declaration is of no assistance to anybody – Government of India issuing advisories to States on impeding crisis – Not enough – Approach of Union of India should be small-minded in certain respects but financially liberal. (Para 95, 97, 98)
(g) Draught situation – In Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana – Several districts known to be draught hit as far back as in October 2015 – Not declared as such – Ostrich-like attitude of these State Governments – Directions issued for creation of National Disaster Response Force (u/s 44); National Disaster Mitigation Fund (u/s 47); Formulation of a National Plan (u/s 11); revision of the Drought Management Manual; Standardization of methodology to be taken into consideration for declaring a drought or not declaring a drought; use of modern technology. (Para 100, 101)
Facts of the case:
This is a PIL in regard to draught or draught like situation in the three states Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana.
The petitioner has sought a direction to these three States to declare a drought and provide essential relief and compensation to people affected by the drought.
Finding of the Court:
Manual for Drought Management needs updating.
Result: Directions given.
JUDGMENT :
Madan B. Lokur, J.
Lokmanya Tilak said:
“The problem is not lack of resources or capability, but the lack of Will.”
1. This lack of Will is amply demonstrated in this public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution, in which the States of Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana are hesitant to even acknowledge, let alone address, a possible drought-like situation or a drought by not disclosing full facts about the prevailing conditions in these States. A candid admission does not imply a loss of face or invite imputations of ineffective governance – it is an acknowledgement of reality. An ostrich-like attitude is a pity, particularly since the persons affected by a possible drought-like situation usually belong to the most vulnerable sections of society. The sound of silence coming from these States subjects the vulnerable to further distress. During the hearing of this public interest petition, no one alleged a lack of effective governance, only the lack of an effective response and therefore we are at a loss to understand the hesitation of these States. Ironically, towards the fag end of the hearing, Gujarat finally admitted the existence of a drought in five districts – a fact that could have been admitted much earlier. But at least, it is better late than never. However, Bihar and Haryana continue to be in denial mode.
2. It is not as if a drought is required to be declared in the entire State or even in an entire district. If a drought-like situation or a drought exists in some village in a district or a taluka or tehsil or block, it should be so declared. The failure of these States to declare a drought (if indeed that is necessary) effectively deprives the weak in the State the assistance that they need to live a life of dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. To compound the problem, the Union of India has introduced the concept of ‘federalism’ and canvasses the view that a disaster requires the Union of India to primarily provide financial assistance and any other assistance if it is sought by the State Government. A declaration of drought and its management is really the concern of the States. Surely, if a State Government maintains an ostrich-like attitude, a disaster requires a far more proactive and nuanced response from the Union of India. Therefore, in such a state of affairs the question that needs to be asked is: Where does the buck stop?
4. In this decision and for the present, we propose to deal only with the submissions relating to the prevailing drought situation or the drought-like situation in the States before us since there is some urgency in deciding it. We shall deal with the other issues raised by the petitioner in subsequent decisions as they are in a sense quite disparate, though linked to the drought situation or the drought-like situation.
Background
5. The petitioner Swaraj Abhiyan has filed this public interest petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Before taking up the case for final hearing, we put it to learned counsel appearing on behalf of Swaraj Abhiyan whether the petitioner is a political party. We were informed that it is an unregistered non-government organization and is not a political party. We put this question to learned counsel for two reasons: firstly, we were of the prima facie opinion that the reliefs sought in the writ petition arising out of drought-like conditions and a declaration of drought in some parts of the country was not a political issue but a matter of grave humanitarian distress and invited concern for the affected persons and animals, particularly livestock. Secondly, we have some prima facie reservations whether a public interest litigation initiated by a political party should at all be entertained. Since we were given an assurance that Swaraj Abhiyan is not a political party and humanitarian concern was uppermost, we p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
