Supreme Court: Air Force Group Insurance Society qualifies as ‘State’ under Article 12  ||  SC: Anganwadi Workers With Degrees Are Eligible For The 29% Quota For Supervisors in Kerala  ||  SC: Giving Accused the Option of Search Before a Police Officer Breaches Section 50 of the NDPS Act  ||  Gujarat HC: Person is Entitled to Compensation For Injury or Death Within Railway Station Premises  ||  Delhi HC: PMLA Can Apply Even if the Scheduled Offence Occurred Before the Law Came Into Force  ||  J&K&L HC: Accused Can Admit Evidence Recorded under Section 299 Crpc After Appearing in Court  ||  J&K&L HC: District Judge Serving as Reference Court under Land Acquisition Act Acts as a Civil Court  ||  Del HC: Subsequent Bail Pleas From Same FIR Should Usually Go Before the Judge Who Denied the First  ||  J&K&L HC: Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, Despite Statutory Status, is Not a ‘State’ under Article 12  ||  SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation    

Gaurav Kumar Bansal and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (08 May 2017)

It is for 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

MANU/SC/0583/2017

Civil

Present writ petitions were filed under Article 32 of Constitution consequent upon un-precedented flood and landslide disaster that occurred in Uttarakhand in 2013. Undoubtedly, disaster led to widespread damage to life, limb and property and according to Petitioners, adverse impact of disaster could have been mitigated had there been effective implementation of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and adequate preparedness by State Government of Uttarakhand. It was alleged in writ petitions that, many of 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 Act.

There is no mandate making obligatory establishment of an Advisory Committee. It is really for 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 plain language of Section 17 of Disaster Management Act, 2005, it is not possible for Supreme Court to give any direction as prayed for by Petitioner.

As far as preparation of State Plan under Section 23 of Act is concerned, it has been informed by learned Counsel for National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) that, all States except Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have prepared a State Disaster Management Plan which is very much in place. As far as districts are concerned, it is stated that, District Disaster Management Authority has been constituted in every district under Section 25 of Act and out of 684 districts in country, a District Disaster Management Plan is in place in 615 districts while it is under process in remaining districts.

On a review of steps that have been taken by NDMA, Apex Court is of opinion that, there has been sufficient compliance with provisions of Act and it is not necessary for Supreme Court to issue any particular directions. It is necessary for NDMA constituted at national level and State Disaster Management Authority at 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 NDMA to regularly publish its Annual Report 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. Supreme Court disposed of writ petitions while acknowledging efforts put in by Petitioners in bringing into focus necessity of implementing statute that might affect any one at any time.

Tags : ENACTMENT   IMPLEMENTATION   DIRECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved