Supreme Court of India
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I)versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 411
- Decided
- 11 May 2016
- Disposal
- Directions issued
- Bench
- MADAN B LOKUR
Holding
The Court held that the Union of India must, under its constitutional duty and the Disaster Management Act, 2005, assist State Governments and may issue directions to ensure timely drought declaration and relief, while the final authority to declare a drought remains with the States.
Summary
The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ petition filed by Swaraaj Abhiyan seeking a declaration of drought in parts of Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana and relief for affected persons. The petition highlighted that the three states had either not declared drought or had delayed declaration despite evidence of rainfall deficits, reduced vegetation indices and moderate drought conditions. The Court examined whether the Union of India, under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Article 21 of the Constitution, could compel states to declare drought and provide assistance. It held that while the ultimate power to declare a drought rests with the State Governments, the Union has a constitutional responsibility to assist, advise and, where necessary, issue directions to ensure timely relief. Consequently, the Court directed the Union to constitute a National Disaster Response Force, a National Disaster Mitigation Fund, formulate a National Plan, and revise the Drought Management Manual by the end of 2016. The petition was disposed with these directions, emphasizing a balance between federalism and humanitarian obligations.
Issues considered
- The extent of the Union of India's power to direct State Governments to declare a drought under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Article 21.
- Whether the Court can issue mandatory directions to the Union to constitute a National Disaster Response Force and a National Disaster Mitigation Fund.
- The binding nature, if any, of the Drought Management Manual and the National Disaster Management Guidelines on State decisions.
- The applicability of Article 32 and Article 21 in compelling state action for humanitarian relief in drought‑affected areas.
- The appropriate standards and indicators for declaring a drought and the need for their standardisation.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 32
- Disaster Management Act, 2005s. 10, s. 11, s. 2(d), s. 2(e), s. 2(i), s. 3, s. 36, s. 44, s. 46, s. 47, s. 48, s. 6, s. 8
Subjects
public interest litigationdroughtdisaster managementfederalismArticle 21Article 32humanitarian reliefenvironmental law
Judgment
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 257
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I) A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 857of2015)
MAYll,2016 B
(MADAN B. LOKUR AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]
Public interest litigation - Non-disclosure of full facts about
the drought like situation or drought by the States of Bihar, Gujarat
and Haryana - Said issue matter of grave humanitarian distress - C
· Writ petition filed seeking declaration of drought in some districts
or parts thereof in nine States - Also sought direction to declare
drought in most parts of the State of Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana
and to provide essential relief and compensation to people affected
by drought - Held: Each of the three States-Bihar, Gujarat and
Haryana have their own unique method of determining whether D
there is a drought or not - Final decision to declare drought is of
the State Government but the resources available with the Union of
India can be effectively used to assist the State Governments - Union
of India to maintain a delicate and fine balance between federalism
and its constitutional responsibility - Strong case made out for E
reconsidering the declaration of a drought in Bihar and Haryana
and in more parts of Gujarat - Delayed declaration of drought
affects common person - Several districts in the three States facing
varying degrees of drought, however, no preparatory steps taken
to tackle a possible disaster - Due to ostrich-like attitude of the
State Governments, this Court compelled to make comment about F
their concern - Issuance of certain directions - Union of India to
constitute a National Disaster Response Force as also to establish
a National Disaster Mitigation Fund within the stipulated period -
Union of India to formulate a National Plan at the earliest and with
immediate concern as also update and revise the Drought G
Management Manual - Government of India to insist 011 the use of
modern technology to make an early determination of a drought or
a drought like situation - Officials lo 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 - State Government to keep in mind the H
257
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A humanitarian factors in matters pertaining to drought and
Government of India in updating and revising the Manual - Disaster
Management Act, 2005 - ss. 36, 44, 47, 48, 11 - Constitution of
India - Art. 32.
Public interest litigation - Entertaining of PIL - Instant writ
B petition pertaining to declaration of drought like situation or drought
by the States of Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana - Said matter is of
grave humanitarian distress - Petition to be treated as one filed in
public interest and not to be taken as an adversarial contest - Over
the years, public interest litigation appears to be degenerating into
C a no-holds barred adversarial litigation, which it is not meant to be
- Public interest litigation is necessary in a welfare State - Welfare
State cannot function effectively if it cannot hear to the
underprivileged and needy people - Public interest litigation
presents the Court with an issue based problem concerning society
- Solutions to the problem within the legal framework and the
D directions are described as judicial activism - Judicial activism.
Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India (2015) 2 SCC
130 : 2014 (7) SCR 725; Sheela Barse v. Union of India
(1988) 4 SCC 226 : 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 643 - referred
to.
E Case Law Reference
2014 (7) SCR 725 referred to Para 13
1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 643 referred to Para 14
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
F 857of2015.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
Prashant Bhushan, Ro hit Kr. Singh, Govind Jee, 0. Kuttan, Ad vs.,
for the Petitioner.
G P.S. Narasimha, Tushar Mehta, ASGs, Aj it Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv.,
-..: Anil Grover, Irshad Ahmad, AAGs, Mukul Singh, Irhan George, Ajay
Sharma, Sridhar Potaraju, B.K. Satija, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Guntur
Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Gopal Singh, Mani sh Kumar, A.P. Mayee,
Ms. Shashi Juneja, A. Selvin Raja, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Kabir Hathi,
Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Noopur Singhal, Manan, Dr. Monika Gusain, Tapesh
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 259
Kumar Singh, Kumar Anurag Singh, Mohd. Waquas, Shashank Singh, A
V. N. Raghupathy, C. D. Singh, Ms. Sylona Mohapatra, Udit Arora,
Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Umakant Mishra,
S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Upendra Mishra, Vinay
Garg, Advs., for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
Lokmanya Tilak said:
"The problem is not lack ofresources or capability, butthe lack of
Will." c
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 D
admission does not imply a loss of face or invite imputations ofineffective
governance- it is an acknowledgement ofreality. 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 E
one alleged a lack of effective governance, only the lack ofan 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.
F
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 G
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 oflndia has introduced
the concept of 'federalism' and canvasses the view that a disaster
H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A requires the Union oflndia 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
B
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 tis since there is some urgency
in deciding it. We shall deal with the other issues raised by the petitioner
c in subsequent decisions as they are in a sense quite disparate, though
linked to the drought situation or the drought-like situation.
Background
S. The petitioner Swaraj Abhiyan has filed this public interest
D petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Before taking up the case
for final Ii.earing, 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 primafacie opinion that the reliefs sought
E 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
primafacie reservations whether a public interest litigation initiated by
F 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 proceeded to hear the petition on merits.
6. The writ petition was filed in the backdrop of a declaration of
drought in some districts or parts thereof in nine States that is Uttar
G Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana,
Maharashtra, Odisha, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. Drought or "semi-
scarcity" has since been declared very recently in April 2016 in 526
villages followed by another 468 villages in Gujarat as well. All these
States are respondents in this writ petition along with the Union oflndia.
According to Swaraj Abhiyan drought ought to be declared in most parts
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN • (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 261
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
of the respondent States ofBihar, Gujarat and Haryana. It has, therefore, A
sought a direction to these three States to declare a drought and provide
essential relief and compensation to people affected by the drought. The
prayer for a declaration of drought in Gujarat has seemingly become
infructuous, but we do have a lot to say about the response (or lack of it)
by the State Government in Gujarat.
B
7. The petitioner has also prayed that all the respondents before
us (13 in number including the Union oflndia) be directed to provide to
the farmers affected by drought adequate and timely compensation for
crop loss and input subsidy for the next crop. A prayer has also been
made for a direction to the respondents to make available timely payment C
for employment (more particularly to the drought affected people) under
the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Generation Scheme
framed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short "the NREGAAct"). It has also prayed
that food grains be made available as specified under the National Food
Security Act, 2013 (for short "the NFS Act") to the rural populace in the D
drought affected areas irrespective of their classification of being above
the poverty line or below the poverty line.
8. Similarly, it is prayed that milk or eggs be made available to all
children who are covered by the Mid Day Meal Scheme or the Integrated
Child Development Scheme in the drought affected areas. With particular E
reference to the farmers, it is prayed that crop loans for damaged crops
and other debts of farmers in the drought affected areas be restructured
and a fair, objective and transparent package for crop loss compensation
be fixed. With regard to livestock in drought affected areas it is prayed
that a direction be given to provide subsidized cattle fodder.
F
9. During the pendency of the writ petition, several affidavits were
filed by the Union of India and by the respondent States. The record
being somewhat unwieldy learned counsel forthe petitioner Mr. Prashant
Bhushan submitted a 'Written Revised Note' for our convenience. The
Note is based on the information culled out from the various affidavits
on record. This has been supplemented by a detailed document styled as G
a 'Final Rejoinder' which is really an aggregation of the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner.
I 0. The Union of India has filed a counter affidavit on or about
15"' January, 2016, an additional affidavit on or about JO•h February, 2016
H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A (the first affidavit), another additional affidavit on or about I 9'h March,
2016 (the second affidavit), yet another additional affidavit on or about
28th March, 2016 (the third affidavit which is in response to the Note)
and an affidavit filed on or about ] ]'h April, 2016 (the fourth affidavit).
The learned Additional Solicitor General also handed over (on our asking)
some additional but relevant documents.
8
11. The Note, the Final Rejoinder, the third affidavit filed by the
Union of India and the list of documents are the principal documents
referred to and relied upon during oral submissions by the learned
Additional Solicitor General. With regard to the declaration of a drought,
affidavits were also filed by the three States that we are primarily
c concerned with - Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana. Learned counsel for these
State.s also handed over some documents during the course of their
submissions. The sum and substance of their affidavits and the documents
are generically dealt with in the affidavits filed by the Union oflndia.
12. On the commencement of hearing, we made it very clear to
D learned counsel that we are treating the writ petition as one filed in
public interest. Consequently, and even otherwise, given the backdrop in
which the petition is filed, we informed learned counsel that the petition
ought not to be taken as an adversarial contest. Our concern is for the
drought affected persons and animals and indeed we were told by all the
E learned counsel that that is also their concern. We are mentioning this
because over the years, public interest litigation appears to be
degenerating into a no-holds barred adversarial litigation -which it is not
meant to be.
13. Public interest litigation is necessary in certain circumstances
F particularly in a welfare State such as ours. In Gaurav Kumar Bansal
v. Union of I11dia it was held that the Directive Principles enjoin the
1
State to take all protective measures to which a social welfare State is
committed. It is said in paragraph 8 of the Report:
"There is no manner of doubt that a welfare State is the
G protector oflife and liberty of its citizens not only within the
country but also outside the country in certain situations.
The concept of parens patriae recognises the State as
protector ofits citizens as parent particularly when citizens
are not in a position to protect themselves. The Preamble
• (2015) 2 sec 130
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 263
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
to the Constitution, read~ with directive principles, under A
Articles 38, 39 and 39-A enjoins the State to take all
protective measures to which a social welfare State is
committed. Interestingly, this doctrine has been recognised
in India even before the Constitution came into force."
14. There are occasions when people in disadvantaged situations B
are unable to have access to courts and therefore access to justice and
need someone to speak up for them. How else can a welfare State
function effectively if it cannot even hear let alone listen to what the
underprivileged and needy people have to say? In Sltee/a Barse v. Union
ofIndia 2 this Court held that public interest litigation is intended to prevent C
the violation of rights of those segments of society that cannot assert
their rights owing to poverty, ignorance or other disadvantages. It was
said in paragraph 11 of the Report:
"The compulsion for the judicial innovation of the technique
of a public interest action is the constitutional promise of a
social and economic transformation to usher in an egalitarian D
social order and a welfare State. Effective solutions to the
problems peculiar to this transformation are not available in
the traditional judicial system. The proceedings in a public
interest litigation are, therefore, intended to vindicate and
effectuate the public interest by prevention of violation of E
the rights, constitutional or statutory; of sizeable segments
of the society, which owing to poverty, ignorance, social
and economic disadvantages cannot themselves assert -
and quite often not even aware of - those rights."
15. Public interest litigation presents the Court with an issue based F
problem concerning society and solutions need to be found to that problem
within the legal framework. Sometimes, the cause of the problem is
bureaucratic inactivity and apathy; sometimes executive excesses that
cause the problem and sometimes the problem is caused by the ostrich~
like reaction of the executive. These situations represent the broad
contours of public interest issues brought to the notice of the Court, and G
these are the kind of issues for which we need to search for solutions.
The successful pursuit of appropriate solutions and consequent
conclusions and directions are often pejoratively and unfortunately
described as judicial activism. In this context, it is worth quoting Justice
'(1988) 4 sec 226
H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A Michael Kirby a former judge of the High Court of Australia who says
in his Hamlyn Lecture "Judicial Activism -Authority, Principle and Policy
in the Judicial Method" 3 with reference to our country as follows:
"The acute needs of the developing countries of the
Commonwealth have sometimes produced an approach to
B constitutional interpretation that is unashamedly described
as "activist", including by judges themselves. Thus in India,
at least in most legal circles, the phrase "judicial activism"
is not viewed as one· of condemnation. So urgent and
numerous are the needs of that society that anything else
would be regarded by many- including many judges and
c lawyers-as an abdication of the final court's essential
constitutional role.
One instance may be cited from Indian experience: the
expansion of the traditional notion of standing to sue in publjc
interest litigation. The Indian Supreme Court has upheld
D the right of prisoners, the poor and other vulnerable groups
to enlist its constitutional jurisdiction by simply sending a
letter to the Court. This might not seem appropriate in a
developed country. Yet it appears perfectly adapted to the
nation to which the Indian Constitution speaks. Lord Chief
E Justice Woolf recently confessed to having been astounded
at first by the proactive approach of the Indian Supreme
Court in this and other respects. However, he went on:
" ... I soon realised that ifthat Court was to perform its
essential role in Indian society, it had no option but to
F adopt the course it did and l congratulate it for the
courage it has shown".
Much later, Justice Kirby goes on to say:
"It is beyond contest that some of the accretions of power
to the judiciary over the last century have come about as a
G result offailures and inadequacies in lawmaking by the other
branches and departments of government. Constitutional
power hates a vacuum. Where it exists, in the form of
silence, confusion or uncertainty about the law, it is natural
that those affected, despairing of solutions from the other
3
The Hamlyn Lectures. Fifty-fifth Series, 2003
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 265
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
law-making organs of government, will sometimes approach A
the judicial branch for what is in effect a new rule.. They
will seek a new Jaw that responds quickly to their particular
problem. When this happens judges, if they have jurisdiction
in the case, are not normally at liberty to just send the parties
away. How do they decide whether the fulfilment of their
B
judicial role permits, or requires, the giving of an answer or
obliges them to decline and force the parties to return to
the politicians or bureaucrats? To what extent must judges
defer to Parliament, when they know full well, from many
like cases, that nothing will be done because the problem is
. too particular, divisive, technical or boring to merit political c
attention and parliamentary time? What, in other words, is
the judicial role in the particular case?"
To be sure, judicial activism is not an uncomplimentary or
uncharitable epithet to describe the end result of public interest litigation.
Those who benefit from judicial activism shower praise and those who D
are at the receiving end criticize it. C 'est la vie!
16. Keeping this and the common Indian in mind, we have
proceeded to hear and decide this petition and we acknowledge that
learned counsel made their submissions in the spirit expected of them on
such a vital issue as risk management, drought assessment and drought E
management.
The Disaster Management Act, 2005
17. The Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to
as "the DM Act") has been on the statute book for more than a decade
since it received the assent of the President on 2J'd December, 2005. F
The Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting the DM Act is,
inter alia, as follows:-
"The Government have decided to enact a law on disaster
management to provide for requisite institutional mechanisms
for drawing up and monitoring the implementation of the G
disaster management plans, ensuring measures by various
wings of Government for prevention and mitigating effects
of disasters and for undertaking a holistic, coordinated and
prompt response to any disaster situation."
H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A 18. It is quite clear from the above that the object of the DM Act
is not only to draw up, monitor and implement disaster management
plans but also prevent and mitigate the effects of a disaster.
19. Section 2( d) of the DM Act defines "disaster" as meaning a
catastrophe, mishap, calamity or grave occurrence in any area arising
B from natural or man-made causes which results, inter alia, in human
suffering. A drought would certainly fall within this definition of disaster.
20. Section 2(e) of the DM Act defines "disaster management"
as meaning a continuous and integrated process of planning, organizing,
coordinating and implementing measures necessary or expedient for
c prevention of danger or threat of any disaster and mitigation or reduction
of risk of any disaster or its severity or consequences.
21. Section 2(i) of the DM Act defines "mitigation" as meaning
measures aimed at reducing the risk, impact or effect of a disaster or
threatening disaster situation.
D 22. By virtue of Section 3 of the DM Act, a National Disaster
Management Authority (for short "the NDMA") is required to be
constituted and we are told that it has been constituted with the Prime
Minister as the Chairperson ex-officio.
23. Section 6 of the DM Act provides for the powers and functions
E of the NDMA and these include laying down policies on disaster
management, approving the National Plan prepared under Section 11 of
the DM Act and to take such other measures for prevention of a disaster
or the mitigation or preparedness for dealing with a threatening disaster
situation.
F 24. Section 8 of the DM Act provides for the constitution of a
National Executive Committee (for short "the NEC"). In terms of Section
10 of the DM Act, the NEC is required to assist the NDMA in the
discharge of its functions and has the responsibility of implementing the
policies and plans of the NDMA and to ensure compliance of directions
issued by the Government of India for the purpose of disaster
G
management in the country. It is also provided that the NEC shall prepare
a National Plan under Section 11 of the DM Act to be approved by the
NDMA. The NEC shall monitor the implementation of the National Plan.
It shall also monitor, coordinate and give directions regarding the mitigation
and preparedness measures to be taken by the Government oflndia and
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 267
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
to lay down guidelines for and give directions to the State Government A
and State Authorities regarding measures to be taken by them in response
to any threatening disaster situation or disaster.
25. Section 11 of the DM Act provides for the drawing up of a
disaster management plan for the whole country to be called the National
Plan. The National Plan is required to be prepared by the NEC and is B
expected to include measures to be taken for the prevention of disasters
or the mitigation of their effects, measures to be taken for preparedness
and capacity building to effectively respond to any threatening disaster
situation or disaster.
26. The National Plan prepared by the NEC is required to be c
approved by the NDMA and shall be reviewed and updated annually.
We are told by the learned Additional Solicitor General that a National
Plan has not yet been prepared, though a policy document has been
prepared by the NEC.
27. Corresponding obligations have been placed on the State D.
Governments under the provisions of the DM Act not only with regard
to the State but also with regard to each District in the State.
28. Section 36 of the DM Act places a responsibility on every
Ministry or Department of the Government of India to take measures
necessary for the prevention of disasters, mitigation, preparedness and E
capacity building in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the
NDMA.
29. Section 44 of the DM Act provides for the constitution of a
National Disaster Response Force for the purposes of a specialist
response to a threatening disaster situation or disaster. We have been
F
informed that no such specialist Force has been constituted as yet.
30. Section 46 of the DM Act provides for the establishment of a
National Disaster Response Fund (for short "the NDRF") for meeting
any threatening disaster situation or disaster. The NDRF shall be credited
with an amount by the Government oflndia after due appropriation made G
by Parliament as provided by law. This Fund shall be made available to
the NEC for meeting the expenses for an emergency response, relief
and rehabilitation. We have been informed by the learned Additional
Solicitor General that the NDRF has been established and the funds of
the NDRF are drawn from the National Calamity Contingency Duty
H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 9 S.C.R.
A imposed on specified goods under the Central Excise Act and the Customs
Act. In addition to this, the Government oflndia also releases funds for
the NDRF.
31 . Section 47 of the DM Act provides for the constitution of a
National Disaster Mitigation Fund for projects exclusively for the purposes
B of mitigation which, as mentioned earlier, means measures aimed at
reducing, inter alia, the risk of a disaster or threatening disaster situation.
Although, the DM Act has been in force for more than l 0 years, the
National Disaster Mitigation Fund has not yet been constituted. There
is, therefore, no provision for the mitigation of a disaster.
c 32. Section 48 of the DM Act places a corresponding obligation
on the State Governments to create response and mitigation funds at the
State level and the District level. We are informed that the States have
set up State Disaster Response Funds but it is not clear whether District
Disaster Response Funds have been established. Since the Government
oflndia has not established the National Disaster Mitigation Fund, it is
D unlikely that the State Governments or the District Administration would
have set up such Mitigation Funds.
33. The above review of the DM Act makes it abundantly clear
that the statute provides for risk assessment and risk management in the
event of a disaster such as a drought and also crisis management in the
E event of a drought.
34. There is no dispute and indeed there cannot be any dispute
that a drought is a disaster and risk assessment and risk management as
well as crisis management ofa drought falls completely within the purview
of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
F
35. We are quite surprised at being informed by the learned
Additional Solicitor General that a National Plan has not yet been drawn
up under Section 11 of the DM Act for disaster management. Evidently,
anticipating a disaster such as a drought is not yet in the 'things to do' list
of the Union oflndia and ad hoc measures and knee jerk reactions are
G the order of the day and will continue to be so until the provisions of the
Disaster Management Act are faithfully implemented.
36. We are also quite surprised that the National Disaster Mitigation
Fund has not yet been set up even after I0 years of the enforcement of
the OM Act. Risk assessment and risk management also appear to have
H
. .. .
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 269
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
little or no priority as far as the Union oflndia and the State Governments A
are concerned.
3 7. Having expressed our anguish that the Disaster Management
Act, 2005 has not been faithfully implemented as yet, we must add that
it is not that nothing has been done.
38. Insofar as a drought is concerned, the Union of India has B
published two important documents. The first important document is the
Manual for Drought Management (for short "the Manual") prepared in
November 2009 by the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation,
Ministry ofAgriculture in the Government oflndia. The second important
document is the National Disaster Management Guidelines for c
Management of Drought (for short "the Guidelines") prepared in
September 20 I 0 by the National Disaster Management Authority of the
Government oflndia. According to the Union oflndia, these documents
have no binding force and are mere guidelines to be followed, if so
advised. This has resulted in a great deal of observance in the breach of
the Manual and the Guidelines. D
What is a drought?
39. The Manual is undoubtedly comprehensive, well-researched
and instructive. However, before we refer to it, we must point out that it
is now of more than six years vintage. It might perhaps need a revision E
considering the experience gained over the years and the availability of
more and better information including more accurate information now
available from the use of technology, satellite imagery, weather stations
etc. Some suggestions have also emerged during the hearing of the writ
petition and these too would require consideration in updating the Manual.
There certainly cannot be any harm in being up to date, particularly in F
matters concerning a drought or a drought like situation.
40. The Manual expresses difficulty in providing a precise and
universally accepted definition of drought in view of a large number of
factors involved. It is generally said that conditions of drought appear
when rainfall is deficient in relation to the statistical multi-year average G
for a region over an extended period of a season or even more. The
impact of a drought could be economic, environmental and social. The
Manual classifies drought in three categories in terms of impact namely
meteorological drought, hydrological drought and agricultural drought.
These are explained as under:
H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 9 S.C.R.
A "Meteorological drought is defined as the deficiency of
precipitation from expected or normal levels over an
extended period of time. Meteorological drought usually
precedes other kinds of drought and is said to occur when
the seasonal rainfall received over an area is less than 25
% of its long-term average value. It is further classified as
B
moderate drought if the rainfall deficit is 26-50% and
severe drought when the deficit exceeds 50% of the normal.
Hydrological drought is best defined as deficiencies in
surface and sub-surface water supplies leading to a lack of
water for normal and specific needs. Such conditions arise,
c even in times of average (or above average) precipitation
when increased usage of water diminishes the reserves.
Agricultural drought is usually triggered by
meteorological and hydrological droughts and occurs when
soil moisture and rainfall are inadequate during the crop
D growing season causing extreme crop stress and wilting.
Plant water demand depends on prevailing weather
conditions, biological characteristics of the specific plant,
its stage of growth and the physical and biological properties
of the soil. Agricultural drought arises from variable
E susceptibility of crops during different stages of crop
development, from emergence to maturity. In India, it is
defined as a period of four consecutive weeks (of severe
meteorological drought) with a rainfall deficiency of more
than 50 % of the long-term average or with a weekly rainfall
of 5 cm or less from mid-May to mid-October (the kharif
F season) when 80% of India's total crop is planted or six
such consecutive weeks during the rest of the year.
The classification of drought as mentioned above need not
be the only criteria used for declaring drought."'
G 41. In this context, the Manual promotes a new system of drought
management (different from the colonial model) broadly based on the
following salient features:
1. Abandon the use of famine codes and varied State management
plans.
' Page I 3 and I 4 of the Manual for Drought Management
H
SWARAJ ABHJYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 271
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
2. Focus on mitigation measures. A
3. Adopt newer technologies.
4. Adapt to the new legal framework.
5. Include employment and area development programmes in
drought mitigation. B
6. Prescribe standardized steps for management at the national/
central level.;
Strangely, none of these prescriptions seem to have gained universal
acceptance over the years.
Monitoring of Drought by State Governments
c
42. According to the Manual, drought is monitored by the State
Governments by obtaining information on four key indicators. 6 They are:
rainfall; storage water levels in reservoirs; surface water and ground
water level; sowing and crop conditions. The Manual explains these key
D
indicators in the manner given below. However, it must specifically be
pointed out that the Manual categorically states that "Rainfall is the
most important indicator of drought.A departure in rainfall from
its long-term averages should be taken as the basis for drought
declaration. The IMD [Indian Meteorological Department] can provide
rainfall data to the State Government, which can also collect data through E
its own network of weather stations."'
Rainfall: The Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) and State
Governments collect data on rainfall every day during the rainy season.
According to the !MD, drought sets in when the deficiency ofrainfall at
a meteorological sub-division level is 25 per cent or more of the Long- F
Tenn Average of that sub-division for a given period. The drought is
considered "moderate", ifthe deficiency is between 26 and 50 per cent,
and "severe" if it is more than 50 per cent. 8
Storage Water Levels in Reservoirs: State Governments
collect data on the levels of stored water in important reservoirs through G
its Irrigation Department. Reservoir storage level is a useful indicator
of water shortages. As data on reservoir storage are available on a
' Pages 4 to 6 of the Manual
6
Section 2 of the Manual
7
Page 49 of the Manual. Emphasis has been supplied by us.
' Page 38 of the Manual H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A regular basis, these could provide accurate information on water
shortages. The Central Water Commission maintains data on water
levels in 8 l important reservoirs of the country, where the water storage
is compared with the Full Reservoir Level. 9
Surface Water and Groundwater Level: Natural discharge
B from shallow aquifers provides base flow to streams and sustains the
water in lakes and ponds, particularly during periods of dry weather.
Similarly, groundwater levels are also affected due to poor recharge,
whether due to lack of adequate rainfall or poor water conservation
practices. As a result, water availability in deep bore-wells and open
wells diminishes substantially. Declining groundwater level are important
c indicators of drought conditions, though these are often attributed to over
extraction of water. 10
Sowing and Crop Conditions: An important indicator of drought
provides information on sowing on a weekly basis. A delayed sowing
shows rainfall deficiency and indicates the onset of drought. Reports on
D crop conditions also provide an indication of the severity of the drought
situation. Ifthe crops are wilting, it indicates soil moisture stress. A crop
contingency plan and other mitigation measures are implemented based
on reports prepared for all the crops sown during the monsoon. 11
Monitoring of Drought by Scientists
E
43. Scientists utilize other indices to measure the intensity, duration
and spatial extent of drought.'" These are: Aridity Anomaly Index;
Standardized Precipitation Index; Palmer Drought Severity Index; Crop
Moisture Index; Surface Water Supply Index; Normalized Difference
Vegetation Index; Normalized Difference Wetness Index, Effective
F Drought Index and Moisture Adequacy Index. It is not necessary to
deal with each of these indices particularly since the Manual makes is
quite clear that there ought to be a convergence of views between the
State Governments and scientists in the declaration of a drought. It is,
therefore, stated:
G "It is clear that that no one indicator or index is adequate
for monitoring drought at the State level; instead, a
9
Page 38 of the Manual
10
Page 38 and 39 of the Manual
11
Page 39 of the Manual
H " Section 2 of the Manual
SWARAJ ABHJYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 273
[MADAN 8. LOKUR, J.]
combination of indicators and indices needs to be used for A
drought declaration.
On the basis of wide-ranging consultations with the
meteorologists and agriculture scientists, rainfall
deficiency, tlte extent of area sown, normalized
difference vegetation index and moisture adequacy 8
index are recommended as the four standard monitoring
tools whic/i could be applied in combinatio11for drought
declaration. Since lite information 011 these indicators
a11d indices are available at the level of Taluka /Tehsi/
I Block, drought may be declared by the State
Govemme11t at the level of these admillistrative units c
011 the basis of observed deficiencies. At least three
indicators or index values could be considered for drought
declaration.
It is recommended that these new standards I guideli1;es
should replace the present system of drought declaration D
that is based on rainfall deficiency and reduction in
annewari I paisewari I girdawari figures." 13
44. From a reading of the Manual, it is clear that drought declaration
today is to be viewed quite differently from the past practice. The
emphasis now is on four factors: (i) Rainfall deficiency; (ii) Extent of E
area sown; (iii) Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, and (iv)
Moisture Adequacy Index. This is generally accepted by almost all the
States and the Union of India as well.
Rainfall deficiency
F
45. How is rainfall deficiency calculated? It must be remembered
that rainfall is the most important indicator of drought. The State
Government can obtain rainfall data from the IMO and also collect data
through its own network of weather stations. This rainfall data may be
applied in two ways:
G
I. The State Government could consider declaring a drought if
the total rainfall received during the months of June and July is less than
50% of the average rainfall for these two months and there is an adverse
impact on vegetation and soil moisture, as measured by the vegetation
" Pages 47 and 48 of the Manual
H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A index and soil moisture index. Such a rainfall deficit would cause so
much damage to agriculture that it would be difficult to revive crops.
2. The State Government could consider declaring a drought if
the total rainfall for the entire duration of the rainy season of the state,
from June to September (the south-west monsoon) and or from
B December to March (north-east monsoon), is less than 75% of the
average rainfall for the season and there is an adverse impact on
vegetation and soil moisture, as measured by the vegetation index and
soil moisture index. 14
Extent of area sown
c 46. Sowing is an important indicator of the spread and severity of
drought. The area under sowing provides reliable information on the
availability of water for agricultural operations. Drought conditions could
be said to exist ifthe total sowing area ofKharifcrops is less than 50%
of the total cultivable area by the end of July/August, depending upon
D the schedule of sowing in individual States. In such situations, even if
rainfall revives in the subsequent months, reduction in the area under
sowing cannot be compensated for and the agricultural production would
be substantially reduced. The State Government should therefore consider
declaring a drought if along with the other indicators, the total area sown
by the end of July/August is less than 50% of the total cultivable area.
E
4 7. In case of Rabi crops, the declaration of drought could be
linked to the area of sowing being less than 50% of the total cultivable
area by the end ofNovember /December along with the other indicators. 1;
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)
F 48. According to the Manual, there are at present 11 (eleven)
agriculturally important and drought-vulnerable States. They are: Andhra
Pradesh (now including Telangana), Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka,
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar
Pradesh. 16 We are primarily concerned with the drought-vulnerable States
ofBihar, Gujarat and Haryana.
G
49. NDVI is an index indicating the density of vegetation on earth
based on the reflection of visible and near infrared lights detected by the
" Page 49 of the Manual
15
Page 50 of the Manual
H " Page 51 of the Manual
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 275
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Advanced Very A
High Resolution Radiometer instrument from a remote sensing satellite.
The values obtained for a given NDVI always range from -1 to + 1. A
negative number or a number close to zero means no vegetation and a
number close to+ 1 (0.8-0. 7) represents luxurious vegetation. For declaring
drought, States need to obtain NOVI values through the National
B
Agricultural Drought Assessment and Monitoring System. All the above-
mentioned States receive National Agricultural Drought Assessment and
Monitoring System reports on a regular basis. Those States which do
not receive the report can approach the National Remote Sensing Centre
for receiving the information. It is necessary that the States declare
drought only when the deviation ofNDVI value from the normal is 0.4 c
or less. However, the NDVI value needs to be applied in conjunction
with other indicators and values. The NOVI must not be invoked for the
declaration of drought in isolation from the other two key indicators. 17
Moisture Adequacy Index (MAI)
50. MAJ is based on a calculation of weekly water balance and is D
a ratio expressed as a percentage. If the percentage is between 76 and
100 there is no drought; between 51 and 75 there is mild drought; between
26 and 50 there is a moderate drought and below 25 there is a severe
drought.
51. MAI values are critical to ascertain agricultural drought. The E
State agriculture department needs to calculate the MAI values on the
basis of data available to it and provide it to the Department of Relief
and Disaster Management, which would ascertain that MAI values
conform to the intensity of moderate drought before drought is declared.
MAI values need to be applied in conjunction with other indicators such F
as rainfall figures, area under sowing and NDVI values. 18
National Disaster Management Guidelines
52. The second important publication handed over to us is in a
sense a follow-up to the Manual, namely, the National Disaster
Management Guidelines of September, 2010 19 published by the NOMA G
(with the Prime Minister as its Chairperson) constituted under the
11 Page 51 and 52 of the Manual
18 Page 53 and 54 of the Manual
19
National Disaster Management Guidelines: Management of Drought. A
publication of the National Disaster Management Authority, Government of
India. ISBN 978-93-80440-08-8, September 20 I 0, New Delhi. H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 9 S.C.R.
A Disaster Management Act, 2005. The Guidelines provide a large number
of meaningful suggestions and practices on virtually all aspects of drought
management. However, what is important for our present purposes is
that in the 'Status and Context' of drought in India, it is stated, inter alia,
that drought has a slow onset and has an impact on economic,
environmental and social sectors. While its impact can be reduced through
B
mitigation and preparedness, it is important to develop contextual plans
to deal with the impacts. It is stated as follows:
"Drought is a natural hazard that differs from other hazards
as it has a slow onset, evolves over months or even years
and affects small pockets to a large regional expanse. Its
c onset and severity are often difficult to determine. As a
result, there is a lack of urgency in response. Like other
hazards, the impacts of drought span economic,
environmental and social sectors and can be reduced through
mitigation and preparedness. Because droughts are a
D normal part of climate variability for virtually all regions,
characterized by extended periods of water shortage, it is
important to develop contextual plans to deal with them in a
timely, systematic manner as they evolve." 20
53. A little later, a three-pronged strategy is advocated, namely, of
E prevention, preparedness and mitigation rather than the erstwhile relief-
centric approach of the past. It is stated:
"The value of prevention, preparedness and mitigation is
now gaining recognition the world over. In India in
particularly, after 2005, there has been a paradigm shift
F from the erstwhile relief-centric response to a proactive
prevention, mitigation and preparedness-driven approach for
conserving developmental gains and also to minimize loss
oflife, livelihood and property." 21
54. With regard to the 'changing face' of drought in India, the
G Guidelines give the telling (and shocking) examples ofCherrapunji in
Meghalaya and Jaisalmer in Rajasthan and it is observed:
"The traditional approach to drought as a phenomenon of
arid and semi-arid areas is changing in India too. Now, even
'"Page xvii of the Guidelines
H " Page I of the Guidelines
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 277
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
regions with high rainfall, often face severe water scarcities. A
Cherrapunji in Meghalaya, one of the world's highest rainfall
areas, with over 11, 000 mm of rainfall, now faces drought
for almost nine months of the year. On the other hand, the
western part of Jaisalmer district ofRajasthan, one of the
driest parts of the country, is recording around 9 cm of rainfall
B
in a year. "cc
55. This preliminary discussion is intended to indicate that a
declaration of drought is not a complicated affair but a manageable
exercise and an appropriate conclusion can be scientifically drawn with
the available data. Nevertheless, it is not a judicially manageable exercise
and no judicially acceptable standards can be laid down for declaring or C
not declaring a drought. With this background and on the basis of the
information provided to us, it is necessary to see whether a possible
drought situation or a drought-like condition exists in Bihar and Haryana..
It may be recalled that Gujarat has declared a drought (or semi-scarcity
as Gujarat would like to call it) in 526 villages in three districts followed D
by another 468 villages in five districts (including the earlier three districts)
during the pendency of this writ petition. Perhaps more areas in Gujarat
might need to be declared as drought hit.
56. Notwithstanding the absence of judicially manageable
standards, the judiciary cannot give a totally hands-off response merely E
because such standards cannot be laid down for the declaration of a
drought. However, the judiciary can and must, in view of Article 21 of
the Constitution, consider issuing appropriate directions should a State
Government or the Union oflndia fail to respond to a developing crisis
or a crisis in the making. But there is a Lakshman rekha that must be
drawn. F
Declaration of drought in Bihar
57. The State ofBihar has filed two affidavits before us - one on
or about l 4'h January, 2016 and the other on or about 11 'h April, 2016.
The latter affidavit effectively relies on the affidavits filed by the Union G
oflndia since "the State ofBihar has furnished all the requisite information
and data to the Central Government regarding the issue of drought
declaration in the State. The Union oflndia has filed its comprehensive
affidavit, which contains the response of the State ofBihar."
" Page 2 of the Guidelines
H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A 58. The reference to the affidavits filed by the Union of India
arises due to our direction given on I 81h January, 2016. We had directed
the Secretary in the Department ofAgriculture, Cooperation and Farmers
Welfare in the Union of India to convene a meeting of his counterparts
in the States to consider an effective response to the drought and a
possible drought situation in the country. Pursuant thereto, a meeting
B
was convened by the concerned Secretary on 25 1h January, 2016 with
officers of the Government oflndia and on 27th January, 2016 with officers
of the State Governments.
59. The response of Bihar in sum and substance, as regards the
four admitted key indicators, is that rainfall deficiency in the end of July
c 2015 was 30% and the deficiency had decreased to 20% by the end of
August 2015 thereby implying that there is no rainfall deficit in Bihar (as
against the requirement of 50% deficit). Sowing of paddy crop was at
96.03% and of maize at 89.62% at the end of August 2015 (as against
the requirement of50%). Steps are taken to provide irrigation facilities
D through tube-wells and canals to save the standing crops and a large
amount is distributed as diesel subsidy for the Kharif crop. In view of
this, the situation does not warrant a declaration of a drought.
60. Even a cursory evaluation of the information points to the fact
that (i) Bihar failed to take into consideration that a drought is not
E necessarily a State-wide phenomenon and a declaration of drought might
be limited to a few areas. A drought might exist in a district or a sub-
division of a district such as a taluka, tehsil or block but not the entire
State. (ii) Bihar also failed to considerthatthe monitoring or the possibility
of a drought does not end in July or early August but continues till the
end of September and in some situations till the end of November. The
F Guidelines provide that "To promote management ofreliefmeasures in
near real time it is necessary to declare early season drought by end of
July, mid season drought (growing season) by end of September and end
season by November."' 3 (iii) Before us, Bihar has completely ignored
the remaining two factors while taking a decision not to declare a drought,
G namely, NOVI and MAI. The reason for the non-consideration of these
material indicators is not clear.
61. What is more saddening is that the rainfall coverage report
has been selectively adverted to for no apparent reason. While the State-
wide rainfall deficit for June and July 2015 might have been 30%, the
H 23
Page 27 of the Guidelines
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 279
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
rainfall in June and July 2015 in ten districts, that is, Araria, East A
Champaran, Madhepura, Madhubani, Muzazffarpur, Purnia, Saharsa,
Seohar, Sitamarhi and Siwan was less than 50% the average rainfall.
The coverage report clearly indicates that as on 3Q•h September, 2015
rainfall is deficit in 19 out of38 districts in Bihar that is in half of the
districts in Bihar the rainfall is below 75% of the average. The affected B
districts are Araria, Bhojpur, Gaya, Gopalganj, Madhepura, Madhubani,
Muzaffarpur, Nalanda, Nawada, Patna, Purnia, Saharsa, Saran, Sheohar,
Sitamarhi, Siwan, Supaul, Vaishali and West Champaran. The overall
State-wide deficit is 27% and this gets progressively worse. As on 30th
October, 2015 three more districts that is Darbhanga, Jamui and Katihar
have rainfall below 75% of the average, the overall State-wide deficit C
being31%.
62. Since Bihar has selectively disclosed information and closeted
· full and complete information from us, we do rtot know the extent to
which each taluka, tehsil or block is affected in each of the 22 out of38
districts in Bihar. The Manual states (and the Manual is relied on by D
Bihar) that "Rainfall is the most im110rtant indicator of drought. A
departure in rainfall from its long-term averages should be taken
as the basis for drought declaration." How did this very crucial factor
escape the attention of the powers that be in Bihar?
63. As far as the area under cultivation is concerned, it is true that E
the extent of area sown continues to exceed 50% of the total cultivable
area. Bihar must be credited for this, but that is not the only or the most
important factor to take into consideration for declaring or not declaring
a drought. Unfortunately, Bihar seems to be giving undue importance to
this one key indicator atthe expense of the remainingthree key indicators.
F
64. The third and fourth key indicators are NOVI and MAI. In
this regard, our attention was invited to a few pages of a monthly Report
of Agricultural Drought Assessment for Bihar for the month of August,
2015. The Report is prepared by the Mahalanobis National Crop Forecast
Centre under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.
Reference was made to the NDVI and the Normalized Difference Water G
Index (NDWl)-2~ The Report indicates that till August 2015 the vegetation
condition is good in the entire State except in a few districts that is
between 0.61 and 0.52 (which is better than in the previous three years).
Similarly, the NDWI condition till August2015 is good in the entire State
" Higher values of NOW! signify more surface wetness. H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A except in a few western and southern districts that is between 0.50 and
0.40 (which is slightly poorer than in the previous three years). However,
the "Vegetation Condition Index (NDVI) shows fair or good vegetation
condition in most part ofBihar, while Vegetation Condition Index (NDWI)
shows poor to slightly poor moisture condition in large part of the state,
particularly northern region." The summary points out that in August
B
2015 rainfall has been normal to deficient except in Banka District;
vegetation condition is good in Eastern and Western Bihar while Northern
and Southern Bihar have poor vegetation condition; the moisture condition
is good except in a few districts ofNorthern Bihar, and 31 districts are
categorized as normal while 7 districts are under 'watch' category.
c 65. As mentioned above, Bihar has made available the figures
only till August 2015 but as we have seen earlier, the general situation in
Bihar gets progressively worse after August 2015. The figures (other
than rainfall coverage) post August 2015 have not been shared with us
by learned counsel for Bihar for unknown reasons. Perhaps the game
D plan is to disclose selective information and material that suits its interests
(but not the interest of its citizens) and to withhold information and material
that might be uncomfortable. We therefore cannot make any comment
on the third key indicator that is NDVI.
66. However, as far as MAI is concerned, the petitioner has
E annexed to the Final Rejoinder the MAI for Bihar.c; A perusal of this
clearly shows that large swathes of Bihar are facing a moderate or mild
drought as on 30'h September, 2015.
67. In its defence, Bihar states that a Crisis Management Group
headed by the Chief Secretary has been constituted. Several steps have
F been taken for arrangement of water for irrigation and distribution of
diesel subsidy for Kharif and Rabi crops. Bihar has canvassed a case of
no water shortage. It is pointed out that Bihar has 12 river basins and
most of them are perennial Himalayan rivers:In view of the deficient
rainfall, the Department of Water Resources has made arrangements
for irrigation through canals, ponds and the Minor Irrigation Department
G has made arrangements through public bore-wells. On an in-depth analysis,
it is concluded by Bihar that the situation does not warrant the declaration
of drought. ·
68. On the basis of what has been told to us and the material
" Source: http://bhuYan.nrsc.~or.in
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 281
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
referred to by learned counsel for Bihar, two definite conclusions can be A
arrived at: firstly, the information provided does not reflect the position
on the ground in districts or tehsils or blocks or talukas but is intended to
reflect the position in the entire State ofBihar. There is no reason why
relevant information at the micro level should be ignored. We have already
mentioned that drought conditions may exist in a taluka, tehsilbr block
B
but not necessarily in the entire district or State and that is why micro
level information should be considered. Secondly, it is quite clear that: (i)
there is deficit rainfall (the deficit being more than 25%) for the period
June to September 2015 in 19 out of 3 8 districts in Bihar and this gets
progressively worse. If the coverage for the entire State is taken into
consideration then the deficit is to the extent of27% and by 30th October, C
2015 the deficit goes up to 31 %; (ii) the area under sowing is considerable
during June and July, 2015 but the status of the Kharif crop thereafter,
whether it is wilting due to deficit rain or low moisture or there is an
adequate network of canals, ponds and bore-wells is not disclosed; (iii)
the NDVI inAugust2015 is generally good except in parts ofBihar. The D
situation in the end of September 2015 and thereafter is not known; and
(iv) the MAI for Bihar shows that large areas in the State are facing a
moderate or mild drought as on 30th September, 2015.
69. Under the circumstances, it appears to us that there is more
than sufficient material to suggest that there is a perceptible threat of a
mild or moderate drought in some districts, tehsils, talukas or blocks of E
Bihar. The unfortunate part of the exercise undertaken by us is that
Bihar is in a state of denial.
Declaration of drought in Gujarat
70. The State of Gujarat filed its first and only affidavit on 21" F
April, 2016 just a few days before hearing concluded although during
the course of oral submissions by learned counsel for Gujarat on 7th
April, 2016 some documents were handed over to us.
71. According to Gujarat, rainfall received was 61.9% of the
average rainfall in the end of July 2015 and during the monsoon period 0
of2015-16 the State received 81.24% of the annual rainfall. Hence
there is no rainfall deficit in Gujarat. Again, the figures presented to us in
this manner do not reveal the entire truth.
72. Even though Gujarat relies upon State-wide figures of rainfall,
it is acknowledged that "normally the pattern of rainfall varies from village H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A to village and sometimes within the same area, certain villages receive
high rainfall and certain villages receive low rainfall, therefore, district-
wise averages are normally considered." There is therefore an inherent
contradiction in the understanding of Gujarat in what constitutes deficit
rainfall as she understands and as projected before us.
B 73. The rainfall data submitted by Gujarat makes for interesting
reading inasmuch as in June 2015 only two districts (in Saurashtra)
received more than 50% rainfall out of33 districts. In July 2015 the
number of districts receiving adequate rainfall went up substantially but
there were five districts in East Central Gujarat, two districts in Saurashtra
and six districts in South Gujarat that received less than 50% rainfall. If
c the rainfall data as on 30'11 September, 2015 is taken into consideration,
the district ofVadodara in East Central Gujarat has consistently received
less than 40% rainfall but that district has not been declared drought-hit.
The entire South Central Gujarat has received less than 75% rainfall
and two districts of Saurashtra have received less than 75% rainfall as
D also the entire South Gujarat region. As per the information made available
on affidavit there is no doubt that every district in Central Gujarat and
South Gujarat has received inadequate rainfall while two districts of
Saurashtra are hit by inadequate rainfall.
74. Gujarat has constituted a Cabinet sub-Committee on 23'd
E September, 2015 to monitor the situation arising due to less than average
rainfall in the State. A district level and taluka level relief committee has
also been constituted for monitoring and implementation of measures to
deal with drought. Why was all this necessary if Gujarat was so well
positioned in terms of adequate rainfall?
F 75. Gujarat submits that on account of the satisfacto1y rainfall,
the normal crop sowing was to the extent of99 .70%. As far as agriculture
production is concerned, the advance estimate production for 2015-16,
as per the Agriculture Department of Gujarat is estimated to be 95% of
the average crop yield for major crops. This might be true. But, Gujarat
considers scarcity/semi-scarcity on the basis of annewari (crop cutting
G procedure) as per the provisions of the Gujarat Relief Manual.
76. On completion of the annewari process, it appears that the
Cabinet sub-Committee met in the end of March 2016 (it might have
met earlier also) and took a decision with regard to declaring a drought.
The Cabinet sub-Committee appears to have found that there is no village
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 283
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
falling below 4 annas (out of 12 annas and not 16 annas) where mandatory A
scarcity is required to be declared in terms of the Gujarat Relief Manual.
Notwithstanding satisfactory rainfall and normal crop sowing, in 526
villages in three districts that is Rajkot, Jamnagar and Devbhoomi Dwarka
the agricultural output is between 4 annas and 6 annas.
77. Therefore, on a consideration of the available data, the B
Government of Gujarat declared a drought in 526 villages in three districts
by a resolution dated 1" April, 2016. The Government of Gujarat uses
the expression 'semi scarcity' as against drought and one of the
submissions made by the petitioner in this regard is that there must be
some standardization in the nomenclature otherwise each State can use
a different expression without admitting a drought.
c
78. Subsequently, another 468 villages have also been declared as
affected by drought (or semi-scarcity- the date of the second declaration
has not been indicated). Therefore, a total of994 villages in five districts
have been declared as affected by drought in Gujarat, despite its claim
ofadequate rainfall and normal crop sowing. D
79. At this stage, it should be mentioned that Maharashtra employs
the annewari system where the cut-off is 50 paise crop yield for declaring
a drought or a drought-like situation. (We take it that the unit is 50 paise
in a rupee of 100 paise). What is more important is that Maharashtra
completed the crop-cutting exercise in October 2015 and passed a E
Resolution on 20•h October, 2015 spelling out the various measures to be
undertaken in villages where annewari is less than 50 paise. It is difficult
to understand why Gujarat could make an assessment only in March
2016 and not months earlier as in Maharashtra.
80. As regards the third and fourth key indicators (NOVI and F
MAI) Gujarat points out that NOVI needs to be applied in conjunction
with other indicators and there are large tracts of land in the State that
are not arable which adversely affects NOVI. The type of soil is also a
relevant consideration and despite many parts of the State being inundated
with water, MAI will be low due to the type of soil. This information is G
used by Gujarat for justifying the annewari system which is said to be a
time-tested method of determining scarcity or drought. Consequently,
both NOVI and MAI have not been given any importance by Gujarat or
in any event, greater importance is given to the traditional annewari
system of assessment of crop production.
H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A 81. For this reason, we do not have the NDVI figures with us but
the petitioner has filed with the Final Rejoinder the MAI chart which
indicates that large tracts of Gujarat are facing a severe or moderate
drought.c6
82. In justification of not declaring a drought or a drought-like
B situation, Gujarat says that it has taken steps to combat the probable
water crisis and the National and State Water Policy for drinking water
has been given the highest priority. It is further stated that South Gujarat
has perennial rivers namely Narmada and Tapi and Central Gujarat has
the perennial river Mahi. Gujarat has an extensive network of pipelines
and several water supply schemes based on these rivers and other rivers
c as also water reservoirs and bore-wells. It is because of the river/canal
irrigation that there are a large number of bore-wells for irrigation and
both these regions have about 94% to 95% of crop sowing. There is
adequate food grain available including fodder for cattle and there is
adequate availability of drinking water.
D 83. The affidavit and contentions of Gujarat raise an extremely
important issue namely whether continued importance should be given
to the traditional method of drought assessment by following the annewari
system rather than rainfall deviation. The Manual prepared by
Government oflndia would like to discard the annewari system but Gujarat
E continues to hold on to it. Gujarat might be justified in doing so (although
we doubt it) but perhaps some standardization on the part of the
Government of India may be necessary in this regard.
84. The Manual very clearly refers to the effect and impact of a
delayed declaration of drought (as in the case of Gujarat). It is stated in
F the Manual as follows:-
"Drought declaration should be a timely step so that relief
assistance and other concessions can be provided to the
drought affected people at the right time. "c 7
It is further stated as follows:
G
"Ideally, States should declare drought in October.
The monsoon is over by this month and figures for total
rainfall are available in this month. Similarly, a final picture
regarding the crop conditions as well as the reservoir storage
" Source: http://bhurnn.nrsc.goY.in
H " Page 4 7 of the Manual
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 285
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
is available by the end of October. It provides adequate A
time for the central team to vi sit the State and assess the
crop Iosses."= 8 (The emphasis is in the original).
The Guidelines also state:
"Declaration of drought, traditionally, is recommended after
the estimates of crop production are obtained through B
Annewari/Paisewari. Generally those areas where
Annewari/Paisewari is less than SO percent, the areas is
considered to be affected by a drought. Final figures in
_respect of Kharif crops are available only in December,
while those for Rabi crops are available in March. c
If drought is declared as late as December or January, relief
works will start only after such a declaration. It will be too
late if the distress signals have appeared in the wake -of
rainfall deficiency.Also ifthe drought is declared in January
or February, the Central Team would visit much after the D
crop is harvested and it would not be in a position to assess
crop losses. To promote management ofreliefmeasures in
near real time it is necessary to declare early season drought
by end of July, mid season drought (growing season) by
end of September and end season by November."= 9
E
85. The system followed by Gujarat clearly does not meet with
the approval of the Manual or the Guidelines. As noticed above, drought
was declared in 526 villages in Gujarat only on I" April, 2016 and in 468
villages thereafter. As per the Manual and the Gu id el ines this is clearly
too late for those in distress. The purpose of an early declaration of
drought is preventive, but the route taken by Gujarat is palliative and F
relief centric. Risk assessment and risk management gives way, in
Gujarat, to crisis management. This is hardly of any advantage to those
whose distress can be avoided.
Declaration of drought in Haryana
G
86. The State of Haryana filed an affidavit only on 21" April,
2016. According to learned counsel for Haryana deficit rainfall for June
and July 2015 is minus 12.6% and for the calendar year 2015 the deficit
rainfall is minus 16.4%. However, there is sufficient coverage under
" Page 55 of the Manual
" Page 27 of the Guidelines H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A irrigation through tube-wells and canals in Haryana and as such a
declaration of drought is not warranted.
87. However, for the period June to September 2015 there is more
than 25% deficit rainfall in 11 out of 21 districts of Haryana. These
districts are: Bhiwani, Palwal, Fatehabad, Hissar, Jind, Kaithal,
B Mohendergarh, Panchkula, Panipat, Rohtak and Sirsa with Ambala on
the borderline. As far as the entire State is concerned, the rainfall deficit
is minus 28.8% for the period June to September 2015. In terms of
deficit rainfall there is most certainly a drought-like situation in Haryana.
88. With regard to the extent of sowing it is stated that there is an
c increase in the total area sown during Kharif 2015 as against Kharif
2014. Haryana says that food grain production has been adequate and
there is no district including any deficit rainfall district where the area
under sowing and average production of food grain is below 50%. In
fact, overall there has been an increase in food grain production by 3.2%
over Kharif2014.
D
89. Haryana says that a self-sufficient irrigation system is in place
in the State with two important sources of canal water that is the Bhakr11
Canal and the Yamuna river. In addition, there are lakhs of tube-wells
and wells for irrigation purposes which ensure that 83% of the State is
covered under irrigation through canals, tube-wells and wells. There is
E no shortage of fodder or drinking water.
90. Under the circumstances it is stated that there is no drought-
like situation in Haryana. The concentration of Haryana is entirely on
food grain production. Undoubtedly, there does appear adequate food
grain productivity as far as the Kharif crop is concerned. But there is no
F acknowledgement of rainfall deficit which, as per the Manual is the
most important indicator for the purposes of declaring a drought. There
is also no application of mind to any of the key indicators (NDVI and
MAI} mentioned in the Manual and the pity is that there appears to be a
total lack of any concern for the situation on the ground.
G 91. The petitioner has placed before us the MAI for Haryana
ending 30•h September, 201S3°. A perusal of the chart indicates that
(frighteningly) most ofHaryana is in the grip ofa severe or moderate or
mi Id drought. But Haryana also banks upon other factors fornot declaring
a drought, such as:
30
Source: http://bhurnn.nrsc.gov.in
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 287
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
(i) Extent of fodder supply and its prevailing prices A
compared to normal prices;
(ii) Position regarding drinking water supply;
(iii) Demand for employment on public works, and unusual
movement of labour in search of employment;
B
(iv) Current agricultural and non-agricultural wages
compared with normal times;
(v) Supply of food grains, and price situation of essential
commodities, could be applied by the State, in combination
for drought declaration. c
92. We make no comment on the view expressed by Haryana
except to say that the disparity in the methodology of assessment of a
drought or a drought-like condition between the Government of India
and Haryana is quite stark.
Discussion and Conclusions D
93. 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 oflndia complicates the matter by introducing the concept E
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 oflndia 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
F
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 oflndia that it would not be
proper for the Union oflndia to sit in judgment over the decision of the
State Governments or to frame binding guidelines. Since this is of some G
significance, the view expressed by the Union of India is reproduced
below:
"14. In reply to para 7 & para 17 of the revised note it is
submitted that the petitioner has stated that Union oflndia
H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 9 S.C.R.
A and all the States require to follow standard definition and
modalities for declaration of drought recommended by the
Manual for Drought Management. In this regard, it is stated
that the Manual for Drought Management is used
extensively as a reference document as well as guide for
action by policy makers, administrators and technical
B
professionals. That the Government of India recommends
these guidelines, it also recognizes that the State
Government could face situations under which they may
need to deviate from these guidelines and they may have
necessary freedom to do so. The manual does not in any
c way reduces the state government authority to take their
own decisions in a drought situation. This is necessary as
there might be situations which do not find mention in the
manuaL Also the fact that some states are more irrigated
than others, as also availability of water, and are not so
dependent on rainfall vis-a-vis other states. The
D
requirement of water is also dependent on the type of crop
sown and even when there is deficit rainfall, the crop
production does not necessarily fall to that extent in all states.
Accordingly, in a federal polity, it may not be justified to
issue binding guidelines for all states to declare drought. It
E may also be pointed out that the states are as much
concerned about the welfare of the people on whose
mandate they have come to power and it will not be proper
on the part of the Central Government to sit in judgment on
their decisions or to frame guidelines which are binding on
them. Further, both the central and state government have
F
to work as a team and supplement the effort of each other
so as to provide necessary relief to the people.
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
G 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 IO'h February, 2016 and II th March,
2016."
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 289
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
94. In light of this, the question that we had raised earlier remains A
to be answered: Where does the buck stop? The Disaster Management
Act, 2005 places considerable responsibility on the Union of India in
matters pertaining to disasters. This begins with the formulation of a
National Plan. The Union ofindia is expected to make available its vast
expertise and database in leading (and not merely guiding) the State B
Governments in the right direction. The final decision to declare a drought
is of the State Government but the resources available with the Union of
India can be effectively used to assist the State Governments in having
a fresh look into the data and information and to arrive at the correct
decision in the interest of the affected people of the State. It cannot
totally wash its hands off on issues pertaining to Article 21 of the C
Constitution but at the same time, we do not suggest that the authority of
the State Government to declare a drought or any other similar power is
diluted. The Union ofindia has certainly to maintain a delicate and fine
balance between federalism and its constitutional responsibility, and that
it must do, otherwise it is ultimately the common person who will suffer D
and be in distress because of a situation not of his or her making.
95. What are the figures being discussed in this case? From the
documents filed by the Union ofindia(on our asking) 11 outof29 States
in the country (now including Gujarat) have declared a drought. In other
words, a drought has been declared in 1/3'd of the country. In our opinion,
a strong case has been made out for reconsidering the declaration of a E
drought in Bihar and Haryana and in more parts of Gujarat. It may be
mentioned that as per the Manual the three States ofBihar, Gujarat and
Haryana are agriculturally important but drought-vulnerable. 31
96. Of the 10 States in which drought has been declared (other
than Gujarat) as per the infonnation furnished by the State Governments F
to the Union ofindia, the number of affected districts is 234 representing
more than I /3'd of the districts in the country; the total population in the
districts affected by drought is about 33 crores which is about 1/4'11 of
the population of the country. Swaraj Abhiyan says that the figure is
between 40 crores and above 50 crores that is about at least I /)rd of our G
population. We are therefore concerned with a very large number of
lives and not just very large numbers and statistics. It is true that the
degree of severity or intensity of the drought might impact differently in
different parts of a district or a smaller unit, but the fact is that drought
" Page 51 of the Manual
H
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 9 S.C.R.
A does exist even in those areas, as per the assessment of the State
Government. Can we afford to ignore the plight of such a large population?
97. The timing of the declarations by the various States is also
significant. The ten respondent States that have declared a drought and
completed their assessment exercise between August 2015 and
B December 2015. On the other hand and inexplicably Gujarat began its
exercise only in March 2016. The Manual mentions that the final figures
of the Kharif crop are available in December. There is therefore no
reason to delay the assessment exercise till March of the following year.
The adverse or negative impact of a delayed declaration of drought
affects the common person, particularly women and children, and
C postpones the assistance that is needed. It also puts an undue strain on
the resources of the State Government and the Government oflndia. All
in all, a delayed declaration is of no assistance to anybody whatsoever
and the consequences thereof are mentioned in the Manual and adverted
to above.
D 98. We have been informed by the learned Additional Solicitor
General that on its part, the Government of India does issue regular
advisories to the State Governments but that they have to take the final
decision in the declaration of a drought. Maybe the issuance of advisories
is an adequate response to an impending crisis but maybe it is not. That
E is a call that the Government of India will have to take, but whatever
view is taken by the Government oflndia, it must appreciate that as far
as a response to a disaster is concerned the approach of the Union of
India should be small-minded in certain respects but financially liberal. It
is true that provision for finances has been made in the National Disaster
Response Fund, but whether that is adequate and releases are timely is
F not an issue before us. In any event, in view of the provisions of the
Disaster Management Act, 2005 the buck will eventually stop with the
Government of India.
99. Towards the fag end of the hearing of the case, Mr. Prashant
Bhushan learned counsel for Swaraj Abhiyan presented the Agricultural
G Drought Assessment Report for October 2015. We are told that a similar
report is usually prepared every month and distributed to all concerned.
The report shown to us is prepared by the Mahalanobis National Crop
Forecast Centre and the National Remote Sensing Centre, ISRO,
Department of Space at Hyderabad. This report gives the agricultural
H drought situation for a number of districts. As far as the three States of
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 291
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana are concerned, the drought information is as A
follows:
STATE Normal Mild Moderate
Bihar 23 15 00
Gujarat 07 16 03 B
Haiyana 09 08 04
100. It is clear from the above chart that it was known in October
2015 that several districts in these three States are facing varying degrees C
of drought. Yet, no preparatory steps appear to have been taken to tackle
a possible disaster. The information provided is from reputed agencies
of the Government of India and there is no reason for any of the States
to have ignored it. It is this ostrich-like attitude of these State
Governments that compels us to make some comment about their
concern. D
Directions
10 I. Keeping all the factors in mind we issue the following
directions:
1. As mandated by Section 44 of the Disaster Management Act, E
2005 a National Disaster Response Force with its own regular specialist
cadre is required to be constituted. Unfortunately, no such force has
been constituted till date. Accordingly, we direct the Union oflndia to
constitute a National Disaster Response Force within a period of six
months from today with an appropriate and regular cadre strength.
F
2. As mandated by Section 47 of the Disaster Management Act,
2005 a National Disaster Mitigation Fund is required to be established.
Unfortunately, no such Fund has been constituted till date. Accordingly,
we direct the Union oflndia to establish a National Disaster Mitigation
Fund within a period of three months from today.
G
3. Section 11 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 requires the
formulation of a National Plan relating to risk assessment, risk
management and crisis management in respect of a disaster. Such a
National Plan has not been formulated over the last ten years, although
a policy document has been prepared. We can appreciate that the
H
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A formulation of a National Plan will take some time but surely ten years is
far too long for such an exercise. Accordingly we direct the Union of
I.ndia to fonnulate a National Plan in terms of Section 11 of the pisaster
Management Act, 2005 at the very earliest and with immediate concern.
4. The Drought Management Manual is undoubtedly a meaningful
B and well-researched document. However, in view of the submissions
made before us by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion
that since the Manual was published in 2009 several new developments
have taken place and there is a need to revise the contents of the Manual.
We direct that the Manual be revised and updated on or before 31"
December, 2016. While revising and updating the Manual, the Ministry
c of Agriculture in the Union oflndia should take into consideration the
following factors apart from others:
(i) Weightage to be given to each of the four key indicators should
be determined to the extent possible. Although the Manual states
that rainfall deficit is the most important indicator, State
D Governments seem to be giving greater weightage to the area of
crop sown out of the cultivable area and not to rainfall deficit.
For this reason, necessary weightage is required to be given to
· each key indicator.
(ii) The time limit for declaring a drought should be mandated in
E the Manual. Although it is stated in the Manual that the best time
to declare a drought, if necessary, is October, we find that some
States have declared a drought in November and December and
in the case of Gujarat in April of the following year. Obviously
this is far too late. The impact and effect of a late declaration of
F drought has already been mentioned in the Manual and it is not
necessary to repeat it. Hence the necessity of a timely declaration.
(iii) The revised and updated Manual should liberally delineate the
possible factors to be taken into consideration for declaration of a
drought and their respective weighfage. Haryana has added
G several factors as has been mentioned above. Similarly, Bihar has
added some other factors such as perennial rivers while Gujarat
has added factors such as the nature of the soil etc. While we
appreciate that it may be difficult to lay down specific parameters
and mathematical formulae, the elbow room available to each
State enabling it to decline declaring a drought (even though it
H
SWARAJ ABHIYAN - (I) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 293
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
exists) should be minimized. This would certainly be in the interest A
of the people who face distress because of a drought or a drought-
like situation.
(iv) The nomenclature should be standardized as also the
methodology to be taken into consideration for declaring a drought
ornot declaring a drought. The Gujarat ReliefManual, for example, B
apparently refers to "scarcity" and "semi-scarcity". The State
Government appears to be hesitant to use the word "drought"
even though a drought or a drought-like situation exists. Similarly,
due to a lack of standardization in the annewari system of crop
assessment, Gujarat takes 4 annas out of 12 annas as a base for
determining ifthere is a drought-like situation. In areas where the C
crop cutting is between 4 annas and 6 annas, there is discretion in
the State Government to declare or not to declare a drought. On
the other hand, Maharashtra uses 50 paise as the standard the
annewari system for declaring a drought. There ought to be some
standardization so that each State does follow its own methodology D
in declaring or not declaring a drought.
5. In the proposed revised and updated Manual as well as in the
National Plan, the Union oflndia must provide forthe future in tenns of
prevention, preparedness and mitigation. Innovative methods of water
conservation, saving and utilization (including ground water) should be E
seriously considered and the experts in the field should be associated in
the exercise. Illustratively, dry land fanning, water harvesting, drip
irrigation etc. could be considered amongst other techniques.
6. The Government of India must insist on the use of modern
technology to make an early determination ofa drought or a drought-like F
situation. There is no need to continue with colonial methods and manuals
that follow a colonial legacy. It is high time that State Governments
realize the vast potential of technology and the Government of India
should insist on the use of such technology in preparing uniform State
Management Plans for a disaster.
G
7. The Secretary in the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation
and Farmers Welfare, Ministry ofAgriculture in the Government oflndia
is directed to urgently hold a meeting within a week with the Chief
Secretary ofBihar, Gujarat and Haryana to review the apparent drought
situation with all the available data and if so advised persuade the State
H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 9 S.C.R.
A Government to declare a drought in whichever district, taluka, tehsil or
block is necessary. It should be emphasized that there is no loss of face
or prestige or dignity in the State Government declaring a drought if it is
warranted, although succour to the distressed might be too late in the
day. The Secretary in the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and
Farmers Welfare in the Union oflndia might also consider convening a
8
meeting of the National Executive Committee and issue directions, if
necessary, to the States of Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana and their
Authorities in response to any threatening disaster situation or disaster.
8. Humanitarian factors such as migrations from affected areas,
C suicides, extreme distress, the plight of women and children are some of
the factors that ought to be kept in mind by State Governments in matters
pertaining to drought and the Government oflndia in updating and revising
the Manual. Availability of adequate food grains and water is certainly
of utmost importance but they are not the only factors required to be
taken note of.
D
Nidhi Jain Directions issued.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "public interest litigation"Sign in to search