{"id":4223,"date":"2016-05-13T13:18:34","date_gmt":"2016-05-13T18:18:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=4223"},"modified":"2016-05-13T13:18:34","modified_gmt":"2016-05-13T18:18:34","slug":"indias-federal-and-regional-governments-may-not-ignore-disastrous-drought-conditions-indian-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2016\/05\/13\/indias-federal-and-regional-governments-may-not-ignore-disastrous-drought-conditions-indian-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"India\u2019s Federal and Regional Governments May Not Ignore Disastrous Drought Conditions: Indian Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Justin Gundlach
\n<\/em>Climate Law Fellow<\/em><\/p>\n

In an opinion<\/a><\/strong> issued on May 11, 2016, a two-judge panel of India\u2019s Supreme Court chastised that country\u2019s federal and regional governments for their recent responses to severe \"India<\/a>droughts, which the Court said contravene key provisions of the National Disaster Mitigation Act of 2005 (DM Act).\u00a0The case was brought in challenge to refusals on the part of federal and regional government authorities to acknowledge or respond to severe drought conditions across large parts of country. The Court was careful to explain that its criticisms relate to unwillingness on the part of government authorities rather than ineffectiveness:<\/p>\n

A candid admission does not imply a loss of face or invite imputations of ineffective governance \u2013 it is an acknowledgement of reality. An ostrich-like attitude is a pity, particularly since the persons affected by a possible drought-like situation usually belong to the most vulnerable sections of society. The sound of silence coming from these States subjects the vulnerable to further distress. During the hearing of this public interest petition, no one alleged a lack of effective governance, only the lack of an effective response and therefore we are at a loss to understand the hesitation of these States.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Court\u2019s 53-page opinion made no mention of climate change, but did acknowledge what it called the \u201cchanging face of drought in India,\u201d characterized by rainfall and drought conditions in unexpected places and at unexpected times of year. Given the growing susceptibility of India\u2019s population to harms arising from drought, sea level rise, and air pollution, it is easy to see how subsequent petitions or statements in other contexts could analogize to the Court\u2019s analysis with regard to climate change-related impacts.<\/p>\n

The Court also issued several instructions, listed below the jump.<\/p>\n

Those instructions include:<\/p>\n