Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 444 OF 2013

Gaurav Kumar Bansal             ….Petitioner      

versus

Union of  India & Ors.       ...Respondents  

WITH  

Writ PETITIOIN (CIVIL ) NO. 823 OF 2013

Foundation for – Resto. of  National Values             ….Petitioner      

versus

Union of  India & Ors.       ...Respondents  

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. These  two  writ  petitions  were  filed  under  Article  32  of  the

Constitution consequent upon the unprecedented flood and landslide disaster

that  occurred  in  Uttarakhand in  2013.    Undoubtedly  the  disaster  led  to

widespread  damage  to  life,  limb  and  property  and  according  to  the

             W.P. (C) Nos. 444 of 2013 etc. Page 1 of 7

Page 2

petitioners, the adverse impact of the disaster could have been mitigated had

there been effective implementation of the Disaster Management Act, 2005

(for short ‘the Act’) and adequate preparedness by the State Government of

Uttarakhand.  It  was alleged in the writ  petitions that  many of the other

States  were also not  fully  prepared to  deal  with a  disaster  and therefore

necessary  directions  ought  to  be  given  by  this  Court  for  proper

implementation of the Act.

2. This  Court  took  up  the  petitions  in  public  interest  and  required

responses to be filed by the State Governments.  However, as per the normal

practice,  the  State  Governments  were  lax  and  extremely  slow  in  filing

affidavits.  The Union Government was also a little slow in ensuring  that the

Act is implemented in letter and spirit.   Resultantly and apparently on the

prodding of this Court, the Union Government took some positive action and

on 25th February, 2016 a communication was sent to the Chief Secretaries of

all  the  States  by  the  Joint  Secretary  (Policy  and  Plan)  of  the  National

Disaster  Management  Authority  (for  short  ‘the  NDMA’).   Through  this

letter, the NDMA required the Chief Secretaries of all the States to frame

minimum  standards  of  relief  for  victims  of  disaster.   This  Court  also

required the Chief Secretaries to formulate (among other things)  guidelines

on minimum standards of relief for food, water, sanitation, medical cover to

             W.P. (C) Nos. 444 of 2013 etc. Page 2 of 7

Page 3

be provided to persons affected by a disaster and also special provisions to

be made for widows and orphans.  Unsurprisingly, there was again some

laxity in complying with the directions of this Court.

3. On 5th April,  2016 it  was  brought  to  the  notice  of  this  Court  that

Section 11 of the Act requires the drawing up of a National Plan for disaster

management in consultation with State Governments and expert bodies or

organizations in the field of disaster management.  It was brought out that

while there is a policy document but the National  Plan has not  yet been

finalized.

4. It was also brought out that under Section 23 of the Act, each State is

required  to  formulate  a  State  Plan  for  disaster  management  and  under

Section 31 of the Act each district is required to formulate a plan for disaster

management.    It is unfortunate that more than 10 years after the passage of

the Act by Parliament, many of the States had not taken adequate steps to

ensure that the requirements under the Act were complied with and disaster

management plan formulated.

5. To make matters worse, we were informed on 14th September, 2016

that  some  States  particularly  Himachal  Pradesh,  Kerala,  Maharashtra,

Meghalaya,  Uttar  Pradesh  and  West  Bengal  had  not  yet  responded  to

             W.P. (C) Nos. 444 of 2013 etc. Page 3 of 7

Page 4

communications sent by the NDMA.  Eventually, however, it appears that all

the State Governments have woken up to their  statutory duties  and have

formulated appropriate plans.

6. In the hearing held on 28th April, 2017 it was brought to our notice by

learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  NDMA  that  a  National  Advisory

Committee  has  since  been  constituted  under  Section  7  of  the  Act  by  a

notification dated 18th November, 2016 and the Committee has a tenure of

two  years.   Similarly, under  Section  8  of  the  Act  a  National  Executive

Committee  has  also  been  constituted  by  a  notification  issued  on

27th September, 2006 and that it is a continuing Committee in terms of the

provisions of the Act.

7. It was further pointed out that a National Plan has been approved and

placed on the website of the NDMA in terms of Section 11 of the Act and the

guidelines for minimum standards of relief under Section 12 of the Act have

also been placed on the website of the NDMA.

8. In further compliance with the provisions of the Act, a State Disaster

Management  Authority  has  been  constituted  in  all  the  States  and  Union

Territories under Section 14 of the Act and a State Executive Committee

mandated under Section 20 of the Act has been constituted except in the

             W.P. (C) Nos. 444 of 2013 etc. Page 4 of 7

Page 5

Union Territory of Chandigarh.   

9. It  was  pointed  out  by  the  petitioner  appearing  in  person  that  an

Advisory  Committee  had  not  been  constituted  by  the  State  Disaster

Management  Authority  under  Section  17  of  the  Act  and  that  necessary

directions should be given in this regard.  Section 17 of the Act reads as

follows:-

17.  Constitution  of  advisory  committee  by  the  State Authority – (1) A State Authority may, as and when it considers necessary,  constitute  an  advisory  committee,  consisting  of experts in the field of disaster management and having practical experience of  disaster  management  to  make recommendations on different aspects of disaster management.

(2) The members of the advisory committee shall be paid such allowances as may be prescribed by the State Government.”

10. On a plain reading of the above provision, we find that there is no

mandate making obligatory the establishment of an Advisory Committee.  It

is really for the State Disaster Management Authority to constitute one or

more Advisory Committee as and when it becomes necessary to do so on

different  aspects  of  disaster  management.   Consequently,  on  the  plain

language  of  Section  17  of  the  Act  it  is  not  possible  for  us  to  give  any

direction as prayed for by the petitioner.   

11. As far as the preparation of the State Plan under Section 23 of the Act

             W.P. (C) Nos. 444 of 2013 etc. Page 5 of 7

Page 6

is concerned, we have been informed by learned counsel for the NDMA that

all  States  except  Andhra  Pradesh  and  Telangana  have  prepared  a  State

Disaster Management Plan which is very much in place.

12. As  far  as  the  districts  are  concerned,  it  is  stated  that  the  District

Disaster Management Authority has been constituted in every district under

Section  25 of  the  Act  and out  of  684 districts  in  the  country, a  District

Disaster  Management  Plan  is  in  place  in  615  districts  while  it  is  under

process in the remaining districts.

13. On a review of the steps that have been taken by the NDMA, we are

of opinion that there has been sufficient compliance with the provisions of

the Act and it is not necessary for us to issue any particular directions.  All

we need say is that it is absolutely necessary for the NDMA constituted at

the national level and the State Disaster Management Authority at the State

level to be ever vigilant and ensure that if any unfortunate disaster strikes

there should be total preparedness and that minimum standards of relief are

provided to all concerned.  However, it would be advisable for the NDMA to

regularly  publish  its  Annual  Report  (the  last  one  on  our  record  is  of

2013-14), to review and update all plans on the basis of experiences and to

make its website ndma.gov.in multilingual so that all concerned may benefit.

14. With  these  observations,  we  dispose  of  the  writ  petitions  while

             W.P. (C) Nos. 444 of 2013 etc. Page 6 of 7

Page 7

acknowledging the efforts put in by the petitioners in bringing into focus the

necessity of implementing the statute that might affect any one at any time.

15. The writ petitions are disposed of.

……………………………J   (Madan B. Lokur)  

            ……………………………J New Delhi;                                                       (Deepak Gupta)  May 8, 2017

             W.P. (C) Nos. 444 of 2013 etc. Page 7 of 7