Growing Tendency Among States To Approach Apex Court: SG On Karnataka’s Plea Against Union Alleging Denial Of Financial Assistance For Drought Management

The State of Karnataka had filed a Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the alleged arbitrary actions of the Central Government in denying financial assistance for drought management to the State under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the Manual for Drought Management updated in 2020 in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Swaraj Abhiyan Vs Union of India.

The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta ordered, “The Attorney General and the Solicitor General, here on advance notice, submit that they will seek instructions on the matter and make an appropriate statement before the Court on the next date. Matter listed on Monday after two weeks.”

Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union on advance notice and submitted “Milords, instead of filing Article 32 petition if somebody would have spoken at some level…”

Justice Gavai said, “Let there not be a contest between Union and State. We see various State Governments are required to approach the Court.”

SG Mehta replied, “It is a growing tendency which needs to be stopped.”

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the State of Karnataka and said“Under the law, I am sorry to say, they have to decide it within one month and that month was over in December…”

The Solicitor General also requested, “Milords may not issue notice, that will also become the news. We are here.”

The Petitioner had contended in the petition filed by Advocate D.L. Chidananda that, “It is respectfully submitted that despite the IMCT report, which visited various drought-affected districts from 4th to 9th October 2023 and made a comprehensive assessment of drought situation in the State and consideration of the said report by the sub-Committee of the National Executive Committee constituted under Section 9 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, Central Government has not taken a final decision on the assistance to the State from the National Disaster Response Fund even after a lapse of almost six (6) months from the date of the said report. It is respectfully submitted that inaction on the part of the Central Government to act on the report and take a final decision to release financial assistance to the State is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The petition also stated that the State of Karnataka is reeling under severe drought, affecting the lives of its citizens. Further, for the Kharif season as a whole a total of 223 out of 236 taluks are declared as drought-affected, with 196 taluks categorized as severely affected and the remaining 27 categorized as moderately affected.

Furthermore, the crops have failed, and reduced water availability has affected domestic, agricultural, and industrial water supply agriculture is a primary source of livelihood for a large section of the State, therefore, the present drought situation has damaged crops and affected livestock, leading to lower yields, reduced income for farmers, and increased food prices. The situation allegedly has a major economic impact resulting from losses in agriculture, impacting jobs, incomes, and overall economic growth of the State.

The Petitioner sought directions to the Union Government i.e. Ministry of Home Affairs to forthwith take a final decision and release the financial assistance from the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) to the petitioner and to declare that the action of the Union in not releasing the financial assistance for drought arrangement as per the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) is exfacie violative of fundamental rights of the people of State of Karnataka guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha and Hasirusene had also filed an application for impleadment as a party in the present matter. The Application was filed by Advocate Kailas Bajirao Autade.

The State of Karnataka had also filed an application to implead the Election Commission of India as Respondent in the present matter. It stated, “It is respectfully submitted that Elections for the Loksabha- 2024 have been announced and the Model Code of Conduct is in force. In view of this, the petitioner is seeking to implead the Election Commission of India as a party-respondent by way of abundant caution. Therefore, the present application is being preferred in the interest of justice and in larger public interest of safeguarding and protecting the interest of the people of the State.”

Cause Title: State of Karnataka v. Union of India and Ors (W.P.(C) 210 of 2024)