Drought as a statutory disaster requires coordinated Union-State action, updated planning and timely reassessment of affected regions.

Drought was treated as a disaster within the Disaster Management Act, 2005, bringing prevention, mitigation, preparedness and coordinated response within a shared statutory framework for the Union and the States. The Court stated that the Union could not treat drought management as solely a State subject because the Act imposes planning, coordination and assistance obligations at the national level as well. On the record before it, the Court found material suggesting drought or drought-like conditions in Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana and directed reconsideration by the concerned States, together with urgent coordinated review and updating of national disaster mechanisms, the drought manual and related planning tools.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether drought falls within the statutory framework of disaster management and whether the Union and States have enforceable responsibilities for prevention, mitigation and response; (ii) whether the material placed before the Court disclosed a drought or drought-like situation in Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana warranting reconsideration by the States; (iii) what directions were required regarding national disaster institutions, the national plan, the drought manual and coordinated review by the Union and the States.

Issue (i): whether drought falls within the statutory framework of disaster management and whether the Union and States have enforceable responsibilities for prevention, mitigation and response.

Analysis: The Disaster Management Act, 2005 was read as a complete framework for disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response. A drought was treated as a disaster within the statutory definition, and the Court emphasized that the National Disaster Management Authority, the National Executive Committee, the National Plan, response and mitigation funds, and specialist response mechanisms were all intended to operate for such situations. The Union could not completely disclaim responsibility by treating drought management as only a State concern, because the statute placed significant coordinating, planning and assisting obligations on the Union as well.

Conclusion: Drought is governed by the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and both the Union and the States have statutory obligations to act on prevention, mitigation, preparedness and coordinated response.

Issue (ii): whether the material placed before the Court disclosed a drought or drought-like situation in Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana warranting reconsideration by the States.

Analysis: The Court evaluated rainfall deficiency, area sown, NDVI and MAI, and found that the States had relied selectively on incomplete or late data while ignoring micro-level conditions and the full range of relevant indicators. Bihar had not considered all key indicators and the material suggested a perceptible threat of mild or moderate drought in some districts, tehsils, talukas or blocks. Gujarat's assessment was found to be delayed and overly dependent on traditional annewari measures, and the record showed that substantial parts of the State had already been declared drought-affected. Haryana showed significant rainfall deficit in several districts and the MAI material suggested severe, moderate or mild drought conditions in large parts of the State.

Conclusion: A strong case was made out for reconsideration of drought declarations in Bihar and Haryana and in more parts of Gujarat.

Issue (iii): what directions were required regarding national disaster institutions, the national plan, the drought manual and coordinated review by the Union and the States.

Analysis: The Court held that the existing statutory scheme had not been fully implemented and that the Union was required to act proactively. It directed constitution of a regular National Disaster Response Force, establishment of a National Disaster Mitigation Fund, formulation of a National Plan, and revision and updating of the Drought Management Manual. The revised framework was to give proper weightage to the key indicators, standardize nomenclature and methodology, promote prevention and mitigation, and use modern technology. The Court also directed an urgent review meeting between the Union and the Chief Secretaries of Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana to reassess the situation on the basis of available data and take appropriate action.

Conclusion: Comprehensive remedial directions were issued to strengthen disaster management structures and to ensure an immediate reassessment of the drought situation in the concerned States.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded in substantial part, with binding directions issued to the Union of India and coordinated reconsideration ordered for the concerned States on drought-related relief and statutory implementation.

Ratio Decidendi: A drought is a disaster within the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and the statutory duties of prevention, mitigation, preparedness and coordinated response require the Union and the States to act on the basis of relevant indicators and timely, technology-informed assessment rather than a narrowly state-centric or delayed approach.

---