This document is part of the reference guide to laws, created and published to help unpack the vast and complicated landscape of laws useful for the protection of India’s coasts. Information contained in this document is collated from various sources.  Treat this as a beginner’s reference guide, useful for people on the ground, who are committed to protecting India’s coastal commons. Visit …. to take a look at the other sections of the reference guide. 

This document simplifies and unpacks the complete legal framework for disaster management in India, covering the Disaster Management Act, 2005, policies such as the Ten Point Agenda and the guidelines for disaster management in India. 

INDIA’S DISASTER RELATED VULNERABILITIES

The unique geo-climatic as well as socio-economic state of India makes it vulnerable to a large number of natural and man-made disasters. According to the National Disaster Management Plan 2019, India is one of the most disaster-sensitive regions of the world. About 59% of its landmass is vulnerable to moderate to high-intensity earthquakes and more than 12% of its land is prone to flooding and river erosion (NDMA, 2019). Drought is a looming reality for 68% of its cultivable area and 5,700 km of its 7,500 km coastline faces the risk of tsunamis and cyclones (NDMA, 2019). In a detailed climate vulnerability index done by the Council for Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), there were some alarming findings. According to their study, 80% of the Indian population lives in a district highly vulnerable to extreme hydro-met disasters (hydrological-meteorological disasters, i.e., flood, droughts and cyclones), and 5 out of 20 Indians are highly vulnerable to all three (Mohanty et al, 2021). The most frequent disasters faced by India are landslides, droughts, cyclones, avalanches, floods, earthquakes and forest fires (Dutta, 2019). The vulnerability faced by the country is further aggravated by the impacts of climate change. 

Some of the densest urban conglomerations of India are situated on its coast. Coastal cities like Calcutta, Chennai, Bombay and Visakhapatnam are crucial economic hubs contributing a significant amount to the foreign direct investment (FDI) in India (Roy, 2019). CEEW estimates that 95% of coastal districts are extreme event hotspots (Roy, 2019).

International disaster management framework

The governance of disaster management in India flows from global conventions and guidelines. In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution, called the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (2015-30). The Sendai Framework stresses on 4 priority areas (UNDRR, 2020) – 

1. Understanding disaster risk 
2. Strengthening risk governance to manage disaster risk
3. Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience
4. Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction

The Sendai Framework is envisaged as working along with other frameworks like the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. Monitoring of the Sendai Framework is intended to complement monitoring of the SDGs (UNDRR, 2020).

The UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) is entrusted with the implementation and review of the Sendai Framework. Disaster Risk Reduction is understood as – “The substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities and countries” (UNDRR, 2020) 

Acts and Policies for disaster management in india

A whole range of laws, policies and plans have been made in India specifically for disaster management. Additionally, other legislations like the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 also have specific provisions for disaster management, a compendium of these laws have been created by the government (NDMA, 2015).

1. Disaster Management Act and Policy

The Disaster Management Act (DMA) was passed in India in 2005. Along with defining terms like ‘disaster’ and ‘disaster management’, the main role of the Act was to establish a multi-tiered institutional system to create and implement policies and plans for disaster management (Disaster Management Act, 2005). This institutional structure is detailed in the section below. 

Following this, a National Disaster Management Policy, 2009 was brought out with a vision to create resilience by “developing a holistic, proactive, multi-disaster oriented and technology driven strategy through a culture of prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response” (National Disaster Management Policy, 2009).  It envisaged 6 elements for disaster management – prevention, mitigation and preparedness in pre-disaster phase and rehabilitation, recovery and recovery in the post-disaster phase. Further, the policy also elaborates on financial arrangements, prevention and mitigation preparedness, approach to response, relief and rehabilitation as well as ways to develop capacity building of the state. 

2. Prime Minister’s Ten Point Agenda

In 2016, a set of principles called the ‘Prime Minister’s Ten Point Agenda on Disaster Risk Reduction’ was released, that stated that – 

1. All development sectors must imbibe the principles of disaster risk management
2. Risk coverage must include all, starting from poor households to SMEs to multinational corporations to nation states
3. Women’s leadership and greater involvement should be central to disaster risk management
4. Invest in risk mapping globally to improve global understanding of Nature and disaster risks
5. Leverage technology to enhance the efficiency of disaster risk management efforts
6. Develop a network of universities to work on disaster-related issues
7. Utilise the opportunities provided by social media and mobile technologies for disaster risk reduction
8. Build on local capacity and initiative to enhance disaster risk reduction
9. Make use of every opportunity to learn from disasters and, to achieve that, there must be studies on the lessons after every disaster
10. Bring about greater cohesion in international response to disasters

3. Guidelines developed by NDMA

The NDMA, which has been authorised by the DMA 2015 to lay down guidelines, has developed 33 guidelines to deal with various types of disasters. These guidelines range from different disasters to response systems and training. Their individual documents can be found on NDMA’s official website (National Disaster Management Guidelines, 2015). These guidelines include multiple aspects  for the management of natural disasters like earthquakes, landslides, floods, cyclones, tsunami and others; for management of manmade disasters like biological disasters, terrorism and chemical disasters, nuclear and radiological emergencies; guidelines for particular places or groups of people and others; guidelines for risk mitigation and preparedness like fire services training, seismic retrofitting of deficient buildings; and guidelines for communication systems like Management of Incident Response System and National Disaster Management Information and Communication System.

4. National, State and District Disaster Management Plans

Under the DMA 2005, the central government is required to prepare a National Disaster Management Plan. Additionally, every state and district is also required to prepare a State Disaster Management Plan and a District Disaster Management Plan respectively. 

In 2019, a revised National Disaster Management Plan (NDMP) was released (National Disaster Management Plan, 2019), based on 5 main pillars:

1. Conforming to the national legal mandates – the DM Act 2005 and the NPDM 2009 
2. Participating proactively to realising the global goals as per agreements to which India is signatory – Sendai Framework for DRR, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Conference of Pares (COP21) Paris Agreement on Climate Change 
3. Prime Minister’s Ten Point Agenda for DRR articulating contemporary national priorities
4. Social inclusion as a ubiquitous and cross-cutting principle 
5. Mainstreaming DRR as an integral feature of development planning

The NDMP – at the most basic level – is an approach in consonance with the Sendai Framework’s objective of implementing integrated measures to prevent current and new disasters, both natural and human-induced. It lays down the blueprint for managing disasters in the country by tackling every disaster individually. Other than understanding risk, it elaborates on the inter-agency coordination, capacity development among other things required by each disaster. It discusses risks and challenges the country faces by stressing on their multiplicity, classifying them by region, viewing them in relation to climate change and managing sectors like livestock and wildlife conservation separately. In addition to response and preparedness, it also lists out the financial arrangements made to deal with disasters. 

Poverty is a major concern as it can mean a lack of resources to deal with disasters, and in India 27% of the population lives under the national poverty line (Mithithapala et al, 2012). Women are also particularly vulnerable to disasters, seeing increased mortality in disasters, lack of access to medical services among others. It should be noted that the NDMP dedicates an entire chapter (chapter 4) to social inclusion in order to deal with this concern.

NDMP highlights coastal areas by specifying them as one of the regions which requires specific attention. In Section 2.3 of chapter 2 – which deals with hazard risks and challenges – coastal tracts and riverine regions are identified as 2 of the 6 special categories drawn out on the basis of their geophysical considerations. Chapter 2, under its section on climate change, focusses on the impact of Indian monsoons, decreased frequency but increased intensity of cyclones and less understood sea-level rise over the Indian region. It also points out the issue of coastal inundation with eastern coast more vulnerable than the western coast due to its low-lying nature. A detailed plan like this helps agencies navigate their responses and take up mitigation measures specific to regions as well as disasters.

Institutional structure for disaster management 

1. Primary institutions

The DMA 2005 created a multi-tiered structure, as detailed in the table below. 

2. Secondary institutions

Additionally, the National Disaster Management Policy, 2009 also sheds light on the other institutional arrangements in existence which play a role in disaster management. These include:

1. Cabinet Committee on Management of Natural Calamities (CCMNC): It looks over the management and monitoring of natural calamities along with making recommendations to prevent them and spread awareness
2. Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS): It mainly pertains to defence of the country, foreign affairs with implication for both external and internal security as well as economic and political issues affecting national security
3. High Level Committee (HLC): It comprises of Finance Minister (Chairman), Home Minister, Agriculture Minister and Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission (members) who approve Central assistance in cases of severe calamities on the recommendation of Inter-Ministerial Central Group that assess damage and amount of relief to be provided
4. Central Government, Ministries and Departments: As per the Act, the central government mediates and coordinates actions of all agencies and since disaster management is an interdisciplinary process, various ministries and departments address issues as specified to them
5. National Crisis Management Committee (NCMC): It is headed by high level officials of the Government of India and headed by Cabinet Secretary and deals with serious crises with national ramifications
6. Armed Forces/Central Paramilitary Forces/Fire Services: With their resources and capabilities, they form an important form the government’s response in transportation, communication, search and rescue operations as well as medical and health facilities

3. Institutional coordination

As noted in the section above, there is a multi-tiered institutional structure in place for disaster management. The tasks entailed in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) tend to be so large in scope that institutional coordination comes to play a very important role. Two levels of such coordination are important – 

1. Horizontal coordination between ministries – Disaster management and risk reduction involves mainstreaming disaster within ministerial and departmental responsibilities. According to the NDMP 2019, “inter-departmental and inter-ministerial coordination or horizontal coordination is important given the crosscutting nature of DRR and the potential implications of one agency ’s decisions on another.”
2. Vertical coordination between centre, state and districts – As per the NDMP 2019, “mechanisms of inter-agency coordination and integration must be strengthened to ensure that locally identified needs are reflected in higher-level plans and strategies.” It thus becomes important to not only ascertain the duties, but also monitor departments and agencies at different levels. 

In the NDMP 2019 framework, this institutional coordination is envisaged through laying down the short term, medium term and long-term responsibilities of different departments at the centre and state level for different disasters. For example, the figures below show some of the divisions of responsibilities for ‘cyclones’ at different levels – 

Figure 1.1: Table of institutional framework on cyclones in NDPM 2019

Figure 1.2: Table on institutional structure for cyclone NDMP 2019 (contd.)

Besides the integration among various levels of authorities as laid out by DMA 2005 and NDMP 2019, coordination is also required among NGOs, emergency administration of response and relief as well as knowledge sharing through weather stations etc. 

Gaps and Challenges 

While the disaster management framework is as old as 2005, there are several issues with the implementation of the DMA and the preparedness of the national and state governments. 

1. Centre-state dynamics create hindrances in effective disaster management 

Be it the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, the torrential rainfall in Uttarakhand in 2013 or the floods in Jammu and Kashmir in 2014 or cyclone Titli in Orissa and Andhra Pradesh in 2018 – all such incidents require coordination between the centre and the state. While the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has been assigned as the apex body for disaster management as well as relief coordination in the country, the primary responsibility – in case of a natural disaster – lies with the state government. The central government offers additional support through logistical and financial assistance depending on the seriousness of the disaster and scale of relief operation.

However, the relation between the centre and the state can help or hinder management. Disaster management is not a specific entry under any of the 3 lists of the 7^th Schedule – Union, state or concurrent – in the Indian Constitution. Instead, the central government draws its power from entry  23 – Social security and social insurance; employment and unemployment – which does not cover all disasters. For example, the entries ‘public order’ and ‘public health’ fall within the State list. The issues with this lack of specific jurisdiction for disasters came out in the COVID-19 pandemic, where the central government took over the management of the pandemic under the DMA 2005, and passed sweeping guidelines for the states to follow in March 2020. On the other hand, several states had already passed region-specific notifications under the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897 or through Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (James, 2020). The disorder around curfew, regulations on gatherings, vaccine distribution and other such issues during the pandemic stemmed from the lack of effective coordination between the centre and the states.    

2. Inconsistent implementation of DMA 2005

In 2017, the Supreme Court passed a judgement in a PIL filed by a Delhi NGO (Swaraj Abiyan v. UoI, 2015), which reveals the true picture of the implementation of DMA, 2005.  The Court directly called out the state governments’ lack of will in this matter. It reprimanded the governments of Bihar, Haryana and Gujarat for not even acknowledging, let alone addressing, the drought these states were facing. 

The Court pointed out the lack of implementation of the DMA 2005. Firstly, when the case was filed, the government had not prepared the National Disaster Management Plan (as required under S.11) – 10 years after the DMA. Secondly, the National Disaster Response Force (as per S.44), still did not have its own regular specialist cadre. Thirdly, the Court also noted that the National Disaster Mitigation Fund (as per S. 47) had not been created, and directed the government to do so within 3 months. The National Disaster Management Plan was finally framed in 2016, and revised in 2019. The National Disaster Mitigation Fund was created only in February 2021.

Another case where the Supreme Court found inconsistent implementation was Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors (Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. UoI, 2019). In this case, post the Uttarakhand disaster in 2013, a Delhi-based NGO filed a PIL for strict implementation of DMA in 9 disaster-prone states. At the time that the case was filed, as noted in the case above – Swaraj Abhiyan v. UOI – disaster management plans had not been prepared at the national or the state levels. The hearings in Gaurav Bansal v. UOI also lasted till 2017, by which time, finally most states had “woken up to their statutory duties and have formulated appropriate plans”. Further, 615 out of 684 districts had also prepared their district plans by 2017. 

While the Court found sufficient compliance of the Act by 2017, it suggested that the NDMA regularly publish an Annual Report on a multilingual website to review and update all plans. 

3. Lack of continuous review and growth in the DMA

In 2011, the MHA constituted a Task Force to review and suggest measures in order to address challenges in the implementation of DMA. While the recommendations of this Task Force came out in 2014 (MHA, 2013), no amendments have been made in the DMA since its passage in 2005. Clearly, the progress in DMA’s implementation is driven by court interventions, rather than government’s own legislation. Despite having a law being close to perfect on paper, failing to incorporate crucial feedback in the Act is a testament to the seriousness being given to matters pertaining to disaster management. The idea of mainstreaming disaster management in India’s sustainable development and climate change mitigation is a distant dream with authorities lacking the resources as well as flexibility to operate autonomously.

WAYS FORWARD

Disaster management requires a comprehensive approach, from raising awareness to knowledge sharing and monitoring. It is this holistic approach that the policymakers need to bear in mind while charting out development agendas for their countries. 

In the case of India, clearer coordination between the centre and state governments may be key to effective disaster management. An important step in this direction would be to include disasters as a separate entry within the 7^th Schedule list, to ensure clear jurisdiction. Further, state governments and local panchayats and municipal bodies need to have a greater role and responsibility in leading both pre-disaster preparedness and post-disaster relief and recovery. Moreover, DDMAs should be well-equipped to prepare their disaster plans and ensure that plans at different levels and geographies are consistent and realistic to their local conditions. Here, capacity building has emerged as a prime concern. Therefore, NIDM, which is already established with the objective of research and training, should be provided with sufficient autonomy for doing so. 

Greater responsibility and flexibility are required even at the central government level. The National Disaster Management Authority – the prime body for disaster management – is led by the central government in all important matters, without leaving it with much flexibility. The governance of these institutions needs to improve by allowing them to appoint their own officials and at the same time, ensuring their operation by setting the frequency of their meetings rather than leaving it to “as and when necessary”. Any funds provided to DMA including the NDRF should also be placed under the administrative control of the NDMA. Setting the right balance between autonomy and flexibility is crucial to supervision and it should be reviewed at all levels to improve monitoring throughout the hierarchy. 

For people and institutions to understand the severity of disaster management, negligence and violation of the DMA should attract strict penalties at all levels. Also, since disaster management requires uniting resources and personnel, the role of citizens and the private sector should also be incorporated in the DMA and NDMP. At the same time, such events also see volunteerism which does not find any mention in DMA. Including such provisions would further make this piece of legislation wholesome in its approach towards managing disasters.

References 

Dutta, Mondira (2019). Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Building Among the Coastal Zone Communities in Lakshadweep and Kerala. Palgrave Macmillan

James, K. (2020, April 3). COVID-19 and the need for clear Centre-State Roles. Vidhi Legal Policy. https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/blog/covid-19-and-the-need-for-clear-centre-state-roles/

Ministry of Home Affairs. 2013. Report of the Task Force: A Review of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Government of India. 

Miththapala, S., Vishwas S., Krishnan P., Ariyabandu, M.M. (2012). Toolkit for Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation into Ecosystem Management of Coastal and Marine Areas in South Asia. Outcome of the South Asian Consultative Workshop, UNISDR and UNDP. https://www1.undp.org/content/dam/india/docs/pub-EnE/a-toolkit-for-integrating-disaster-risk-reduction-and-climate-change-adaptation-into-ecosystem-management-of-coastal-and-marine-areas-in-south-asia.pdf

Mohanty, Abinash, and Shreya Wadhawan (2021). Mapping India’s Climate Vulnerability – A District Level Assessment. Council on Energy, Environment and Water. https://www.ceew.in/sites/default/files/ceew-study-on-climate-change-vulnerability-index-and-district-level-risk-assessment.pdf

National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) (2019). National Disaster Management Plan. https://ndma.gov.in/sites/default/files/PDF/ndmp-2019.pdf

Roy, Aparna (2019) Making India’s Coastal Infrastructure Climate-Resilient: Challenges and Opportunities. Observer Research Foundation, Occasional Paper No. 207. 

Acts, Rules and Guidelines referred: 

The Disaster Management Act, 2005 (India). https://ndma.gov.in/sites/default/files/PDF/DM_act2005.pdf

Ministry of Home Affairs (2009).  National Policy on Disaster Management  (India). https://ndma.gov.in/sites/default/files/PDF/national-dm-policy2009.pdf

National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA). Prime Minister’s Ten Point Agenda on DRR. https://ndma.gov.in/Governance/PM-10-Agenda

National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA). NDMA Guidelines. https://ndma.gov.in/Governance/Guidelines

National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) (2019). National Disaster Management Plan. https://ndma.gov.in/sites/default/files/PDF/ndmp-2019.pdf

National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) (2015). Compendium of Laws on Disaster Management. https://ndma.gov.in/sites/default/files/PDF/COMPENDIUM-OF-LAWS-ON-DISASTER-MANAGEMENT.pdf

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) (2020). What is the Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction?. https://www.undrr.org/implementing-sendai-framework/what-sendai-framework

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) (2020). The Sendai Framework and the SDGs. https://www.undrr.org/implementing-sendai-framework/sf-and-sdgs

Cases Referred: 

Swaraj Abhiyan vs. Union of India (UoI). Writ Petition No. 857 of 2015 before the Supreme Court of India. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47239859/

Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India (UoI) & Ors. Writ Petition No. 823 of 2013 before the Supreme Court of India. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110325972/

———–

The views expressed in this paper are of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their organisations.