The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Centre for washing off its hands in the name of federalism and doing nothing substantial for the drought-affected states when about 33 crore population in the country is affected due to drought.
The court was equally upset with the stubborn attitude of the states of Gujarat, Bihar and Haryana in not declaring drought in their states and thus depriving the weaker sections of any relief.
A bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur and N.V. Ramana, acting on a PIL, directed the Centre to come out with a national drought policy; to set up a national plan relating to risk-assessment, risk-management and crisis-management in respect of a disaster such as drought; to set up National Disaster Response Force within six months from Wednesday with an appropriate and regular cadre strength; to set up National Disaster Mitigation Fund in three months. It wanted the Centre to standardise the nomenclature of drought in the drought manual and the methodology to be taken into consideration for declaring a drought or not declaring a drought.
The writ petition was filed by Swaraj Abhyan, an NGO, in the backdrop of a declaration of drought in some districts or parts thereof in nine states that is Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, Orissa, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. The bench said the Centre complicated 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. On lack of response from three states, the bench said the problem is not lack of resources or capability, but the lack of will. This lack of will is amply demonstrated in this PIL 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.
The sound of silence coming from these States subjects the vulnerable to further distress. 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.
The Bench directed the Secretary in the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture in the Government of India 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 Governments to declare a drought in whichever district, taluka, tehsil or block is necessary.
