Karnataka's Plea For Drought Relief: Supreme Court Asks Union To Submit Inter-Ministerial Central Team's Report

The Supreme Court (on April 29), while hearing the petition filed by the Karnataka government against the Union of India for drought relief funds, asked the Union to submit the report of the Inter-Ministerial Central Team (IMCT). The team visited drought-hit districts of Karnataka to assess the drought situation across the State.

Previously, Attorney General R Venkataramani informed that the Election Commission had given clearance to the Centre to deal with the issue. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to today.

Following this, on April 27, the Centre announced the release of ₹3,454 crores as drought relief as against Rs.18,171.44 crores sought by the State.

The State Government reportedly sought Rs.18,171.44 crore under the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) through three Drought Relief Memorandum submitted in September-November 2023. The division was as such that Rs.4663.12 crore was towards crop loss input subsidy, Rs. 12577.9 crore towards gratuitous relief to families whose livelihood has been seriously affected due to drought, Rs.566.78 crore for addressing a shortage of drinking water relief then and Rs.363.68 crore towards cattle care.

At the commencement of today's hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Karnataka, mentioned that there was an inspection by the Inter-Ministerial Central Team. Thereafter, he submitted that out of the Rs. 4663.12 crore claim, the relief of Rs. 3,454 crore has been given.

“The problem, according to us, is that this particular claim (gratuitous relief to families) has not even been addressed, and this is part of the policy of the Government of India under the National Disaster Act.”

Taking a cue from this, he stressed that the team, after it went to the State, had submitted its report to the sub-committee. This, in turn, was submitted to the home ministry for decision-making. However, he highlighted that the same report is not with the State and requested a direction that the same report must be placed before the Court. 

“What happened in this case was that inter-ministerial team which went to the State and looked at these factors and gave a report to the sub-committee, which, in turn, sends it to the appropriate authority, the home ministry, to take a decision. That report is not with us. My request to your lordhsips is to ask them to place that report before your lordships and in accordance with that whatever is decided, we have no problem with that. But they cannot keep the report and not give us on this count which is 12 crores..,” Sibal submitted.

Following this, the AG submitted that the committee's recommendations are placed before the sub-committee that takes into account these recommendations. Based on this, a high-level committee is recommended. “This (is the) process, the process has not been deviated.”

In his attempt to convince the bench, AG submitted that the recommendations have been acted upon, and the final release is based on that.

After hearing the submissions, the Court asked the Union officer to place a report. The Court also declined AG's submission of submitting a note first and made it clear that a report has to be submitted. The matter was accordingly adjourned to next Monday.