On Monday, July 24, the Delhi High Court directed the Aam Aadmi Paty government in the national capital to file a ‘detailed status report’ highlighting the relief measures given to the people affected by the floods. The court gave these directions while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a former Professor of Azim Premji University, Dr. Akash Bhattacharya.
The PIL sought immediate relief measures like free rations, medical assistance, sanitary provisions, and other essentials for people stuck at the Yamuna relief camps.
The Professor has contended that the current flood situation is the most devasting calamity that has taken place in Delhi since 1978. For this reason, he has urged the court to direct the Delhi government to notify the flood as a natural disaster under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
The plea claimed that because of the inadequate response from the authorities, the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of poor have been adversely affected. According to the petitioner, around 25,000 people have been affected directly or indirectly by the flood. The affected people are living in extreme conditions at the relief camps without proper sanitation facilities and food.
It stated, “That the lackadaisical response from authorities cost the livelihood of hundreds of poor and destroyed their sole shelter which contained household items to important documents which proves the existence of the concerned.”
Representing the petitioner, Advocate KS Siyas requested the court to ask the Delhi government to provide immediate cash assistance of Rs. 50,000 for those who have lost their shelter in these floods.
However, Delhi Government’s Standing Counsel Santosh Kumar Tripathi firmly opposed the plea. He said that the plea was circulated in the media even before a hearing in the case. The Delhi government’s counsel claimed that every flood relief camp has all the basic amenities. He added that the Delhi cabinet has already taken a decision to provide financial assistance to those affected by floods.
Alleging that the petitioner has not done due diligence and has filed a plea without approaching the flooded areas, he claimed that this reflects differently in the public domain as if the government is doing nothing. He added that he has a serious objection to this kind of petition.
However, the division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Saurabh Banerjee rejected these objections. The bench remarked that the petition has been filed for a “genuine cause”.
Subsequently, the bench asked the Delhi Government to file a detailed response indicating the measures taken and basic amenities provided to the affected people. The court has posted the matter for September 13.
During the hearing, the petitioner highlighted that flood management is a state subject under the Constitution and the “primary onus is upon states to take steps to deal with it”.
It further argued that it is both a constitutional and statutory obligation of the Delhi government to provide immediate assistance to the victims of natural calamity under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. It also asserted that the flood qualifies as a disaster according to Section 2(d) of the Act.
