Centre urges SC to reject Karnataka’s plea for more drought relief fund
The Centre on Monday urged the Supreme Court to turn down the Karnataka government’s petition seeking a direction for the release of ₹17,901 crore for drought relief
The Centre on Monday urged the Supreme Court to turn down the Karnataka government’s petition seeking a direction for the release of ₹17,901 crore for drought relief, contending that the release of financial assistance to the state has been in absolute consonance with the disaster management law and other pertinent regulations.
Appearing before a bench led by justice Bhushan R Gavai, attorney general R Venkataramani referred to his note, which implored the bench to stop entertaining Karnataka’s petition any further. He informed the bench, which also comprised justice Sandeep Mehta, that the Centre has also brought on record the inter-ministerial central team (IMCT) report on financial assistance to the southern state to show its adherence to all the norms. While the Karnataka government made a demand of ₹17,901 crore for drought relief, IMCT approved ₹3819 crore. On April 26, the Centre released ₹3,454 crore to Karnataka under the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) for drought relief.
“The release of the financial assistance has been made by the Union of India in substantial consonance with the recommendations of Sub-Committee of National Executive Committee (SC-NEC), based on the items and norms of assistance under NDRF and the Report of the IMCT,” stated the AG’s note.
The release of the financial assistance, the note said, is strictly in accordance with the “Guidelines on Constitution and Administration of the State Disaster Response Fund & National Disaster Response Fund” issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
“In view of the due and necessary actions taken by the Union of India in consonance with the framework of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the norms and principles which have been enunciated under the Act, no case has been made out for any further adjudication of the subject in question,” Venkataramani told the court.
Senior lawyer, Kapil Sibal representing the Karnataka government, told the bench that he needs some time to submit the state’s response to the Centre’s stance, specifically to rebut the findings in the IMCT report regarding absence of data from the state on emergency expenditure under several heads. “There are some factual errors in their reply. Give me some time to file an affidavit in response to that,” Sibal told the bench, which posted the matter for hearing in July.
In its previous two hearings last month, the top court stressed the need for cooperation between the Centre and states for amicable resolutions of such disputes instead of court battles.
Citing “grave humanitarian distress” and a “calamity” of severe nature faced by the southern state, the Karnataka government had moved the top court in April, complaining against the alleged failure of MHA in taking a final decision and release financial assistance from the NDRF, despite six months passing since the filing of the IMCT report.
The Karnataka government’s plea, filed through advocate DL Chidananda, emphasised agriculture as a primary source of livelihood for a large section of the state’s population, highlighting the damage to crops and livestock due to the present drought situation. The delay in convening a high-level committee meeting to approve relief from NDRF was also criticised.
“The present drought situation has damaged crops and affected livestock, leading to lower yields, reduced income for farmers, and increased food prices. The situation has major economic impact resulting from losses in agriculture, impacting jobs, incomes, and overall economic growth of the state” stated the petition. It further argued that the Centre’s inaction in releasing financial assistance for drought relief was illegal, arbitrary, and violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (life and liberty) of the Constitution.
Last month, a similar petition was filed in the apex court by the Tamil Nadu government as well. Tamil Nadu sought direction to the Centre to release ₹19,692.69 crore as financial assistance for damage caused by cyclone ‘Michaung’ in December 2023, alleging that funds were not made available despite repeated requests.
On April 1, a different bench in the Supreme Court had rejected the Kerala government’s plea for directing the Union government to relax its borrowing cap restrictions so that the state could borrow additional funds in the current fiscal year, noting that any such an order might set a “bad precedent in law” that would enable states to flout fiscal policies and still successfully claim additional borrowings.
The deluge of petitions by various states demanding directives to the Union government for the release of funds represents the judiciary’s expanding involvement in scrutinising federal financial relations and state autonomy under India’s intricate fiscal system.