In a significant development concerning the aftermath of the devastating landslides in Wayanad, Kerala, the Kerala High Court has expressed strong disapproval of the Union Government's refusal to grant loan waivers to the victims. The court's remarks came in response to the Centre's argument that it lacked the authority to provide such relief due to the recent omission of Section 13 from the National Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Background of the Case
The landslides that struck Wayanad on July 30, 2024, caused widespread devastation, displacing numerous families and resulting in significant loss of life and property. In the wake of this disaster, the Kerala High Court initiated a suo motu case to monitor the relief and rehabilitation efforts. One of the critical issues addressed was the financial burden on the affected individuals, many of whom had outstanding loans.
Section 13 of the National Disaster Management Act, 2005, had previously empowered the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) to recommend relief measures, including loan waivers, for individuals affected by severe disasters. However, in March 2025, this provision was omitted through an amendment to the Act, leading the Union Government to assert that it no longer had the legal basis to grant loan waivers.
Court's Observations
During the proceedings, a division bench comprising Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj questioned the Centre's stance. Justice Nambiar remarked that the Union Government could not claim to be powerless merely because a specific provision had been omitted from the Act. He emphasized that under Article 73 of the Indian Constitution, the executive power of the Union extends to matters on which Parliament has the power to legislate, and such power is not confined to the provisions of the Disaster Management Act.
Justice Nambiar further criticized the Union Government for attempting to "hide behind the legal provision" to justify its inaction. He noted that while the amendment might have removed the NDMA's power to recommend loan waivers, the Union Government still retained the authority to take such decisions independently.
Centre's Response
In response to the court's observations, Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan acknowledged that the Union Government retained the executive power to grant loan waivers. However, he contended that such decisions were policy matters and not merely legal ones. He suggested that the Centre's reluctance to exercise this power was based on policy considerations rather than a lack of authority.
Implications of the Court's Remarks
The Kerala High Court's strong remarks underscore the judiciary's role in ensuring that the executive fulfills its obligations, especially in times of crisis. The court's observations challenge the Union Government to reconsider its position and take proactive steps to alleviate the financial hardships faced by the landslide victims.
The case also highlights the broader issue of disaster management and the need for comprehensive policies that address the immediate and long-term needs of affected communities. While legal provisions play a crucial role, the court's intervention suggests that humanitarian considerations should take precedence in disaster response efforts.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court's criticism of the Union Government's refusal to grant loan waivers to the Wayanad landslide victims serves as a reminder of the government's duty to act decisively and compassionately in the face of natural disasters. As the case progresses, it is hoped that the Union Government will heed the court's observations and take appropriate measures to provide relief to those affected by the calamity.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.