2016 (5) TMI 1459 - SC - Indian Laws

Declaration of drought-like situation in some village in a district or a taluka or tehsil or block in the states of Bihar Gujarat and Haryana - providing essential relief and compensation to people affected by the drought - 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 - Held that - Each of the three States that we are concerned with have their own unique method of determining whether there is a drought or not. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General the Manual and the Guidelines are indicative and not mandatory. The third affidavit of the Union of India complicates the matter by introducing the concept of federalism that is the relationship between the Union and the States with respect to drought. The ostensible purpose of introducing this concept is to enable the Union of India to wash its hands off in matters concerning drought declaration and to give enough elbow room to a State Government to decide whether to declare a drought or not since the Manual is only a reference document and a guide for action and the State Governments could face situations under which they may need to deviate from the guidance given in the Manual. Under the circumstances it is stated in the third affidavit of the Union of India that it would not be proper for the Union of India to sit in judgment over the decision of the State Governments or to frame binding guidelines. Hence it will not be proper to direct the states of Bihar Gujarat and Haryana to immediately declare drought in Taluka/Tehsil/Blocks as suggested by the Petitioner. These states in any case have taken their own reasoned decision for not declaring drought in their states which have already been enumerated in the earlier affidavits filed by this department dated 10th February 2016 and 11th March 2016. As mandated necessary Force fund and plan need to be established to fulfill the required - The Secretary in the Department of Agriculture Cooperation and Farmers Welfare Ministry of Agriculture in the Government of India is directed to urgently hold a meeting within a week with the Chief Secretary of Bihar Gujarat and Haryana to review the apparent drought situation with all the available data and if so advised persuade the State Government to declare a drought in whichever district taluka tehsil or block is necessary.

Issues Involved:
1. Lack of acknowledgment and response to drought conditions.
2. Responsibilities under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
3. Criteria and methodology for declaring drought.
4. Timeliness and adequacy of drought declarations.
5. Role of Union and State Governments in managing drought.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Lack of acknowledgment and response to drought conditions:
The judgment criticizes the States of Bihar, Gujarat, and Haryana for their reluctance to acknowledge and address drought conditions. It emphasizes that admitting to a drought does not imply ineffective governance but is an acknowledgment of reality. The court notes that Gujarat eventually admitted to drought conditions in five districts, but Bihar and Haryana remained in denial.

2. Responsibilities under the Disaster Management Act, 2005:
The Disaster Management Act, 2005 (DM Act) mandates the creation of a National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) and a National Executive Committee (NEC) to handle disaster management. The Act defines "disaster" to include drought and outlines responsibilities for risk assessment, mitigation, and crisis management. The judgment highlights the Union of India's failure to implement key provisions of the DM Act, such as the establishment of a National Disaster Response Force and a National Disaster Mitigation Fund.

3. Criteria and methodology for declaring drought:
The judgment discusses the Manual for Drought Management and the National Disaster Management Guidelines, which outline criteria for declaring drought based on rainfall deficiency, extent of area sown, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), and Moisture Adequacy Index (MAI). The court finds that Bihar, Gujarat, and Haryana did not adequately consider these criteria. For instance, Bihar focused on state-wide averages rather than micro-level data, and Gujarat relied on the traditional annewari system instead of the recommended indicators.

4. Timeliness and adequacy of drought declarations:
The court emphasizes the importance of timely drought declarations to provide necessary relief. It criticizes Gujarat for delaying its drought declaration until April 2016, despite evidence of drought conditions in October 2015. The judgment notes that delayed declarations hinder effective relief measures and exacerbate the distress of affected populations.

5. Role of Union and State Governments in managing drought:
The judgment stresses the Union of India's responsibility to lead and assist State Governments in managing drought. It criticizes the Union for its "hands-off" approach and emphasizes the need for a coordinated response. The court directs the Union to hold meetings with the Chief Secretaries of Bihar, Gujarat, and Haryana to review the drought situation and consider declaring drought where necessary.

Directions Issued:
1. Constitution of National Disaster Response Force: The Union of India is directed to establish this force within six months.
2. Establishment of National Disaster Mitigation Fund: The Union of India is directed to establish this fund within three months.
3. Formulation of a National Plan: The Union of India is directed to formulate a National Plan as required by the DM Act.
4. Revision of the Drought Management Manual: The Manual must be updated by 31st December 2016, considering new developments and ensuring weightage to key indicators.
5. Standardization of Nomenclature and Methodology: The Union of India must standardize the terms and methods used for declaring drought.
6. Use of Modern Technology: The Union of India must insist on the use of modern technology for early drought determination.
7. Review Meetings: The Secretary in the Department of Agriculture is directed to hold a meeting with the Chief Secretaries of Bihar, Gujarat, and Haryana to review the drought situation.
8. Consideration of Humanitarian Factors: State Governments must consider factors such as migrations, suicides, and the plight of women and children in drought management.

The judgment underscores the need for a proactive and coordinated approach to drought management, emphasizing the responsibilities of both Union and State Governments under the DM Act.

← Previous Next →