Constitutionalism viz-a-viz Disaster Management Act 2005: a Critical Study

- Riddhi Chaudhary 1,
Introduction
The basic pivot around which diverse components of an activity are linked is the legal framework. It is
probably for this reason that it has been deemed necessary to establish modern democratic political systems on the
basis of a written Constitution. For obvious reasons, issues and actions that could not fit into the design of a written
Constitution have been given a solid legal foundation by adopting a framework law on the subject. One such concern
in India has been disaster management. Despite being one of the world's most catastrophe-prone countries, disaster
management was not included in the Indian Constitution for reasons mentioned later in the paper. Indeed, disasters,
both natural and man-made, were found to be managed in the traditional colonial style of trial and error, resulting in
enormous misery for the people and massive loss of life and property for a long time. The looming threat of climate
change, as well as its massive impact on the recurrence of natural catastrophes, has spurred the international
community to rethink disaster management systems everywhere. The development of a robust legal framework was
given top priority in such a revamp of disaster management systems. In response to these arguments, the Indian
Parliament passed the Disaster Management Act in 2005, which establishes the legal framework within which
disaster management structures, functionaries, and activities are organised and operationalized in order to make the
country disaster-free. As a result, the article aims to critically examine the country's legal structure for disaster
management.
The failure to strictly apply the law, a lack of public and staff education about disaster risk, poor urban
planning, an unstable security situation, citizen intervention, the provision of equipment, tools, and infrastructure,
and a lack of financial support are the major challenges associated with disaster response planning.
India is one of the world's most disaster-prone countries, with about 80% of the country's land area at risk of
one or more types of natural disaster. Between 2000 and 2009, an average of 65 million individuals in India were
affected by disasters, with 3.25 million of these being pregnant or lactating moms. Every year, disasters affect 8.45
million children under the age of five, 1.25 million of whom are malnourished (UNICEF). Droughts and floods affect
the majority of India, albeit they are more common in the north western and eastern regions, respectively. The
Himalayan region in the north and north-eastern parts of the country is affected by geophysical hazards, which have
a high fatality rate but a moderate GDP impact. Cyclones affect a tiny area of the country, yet they have a significant
mortality rate. At least one hazard has a major impact on the multi-hazard mortality of the entire country, with
death consequences concentrated in the north and north-eastern regions. Since the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami,
India has become significantly more vulnerable to tsunamis. Nearly 57% of the land is susceptible to earthquakes
(high seismic zones III–V), 68 percent to drought, 8% to cyclones, and 12% to floods.

Perspectives on the Constitution

The Indian Constitution does not contain any explicit provisions on to begin with,
Firstly, a constitution, as the supreme law of the land, is usually a collection of basic laws that outline the
fundamental contours of a polity, including detailed provisions on fundamental rights and an indication of the
legislative, administrative, and financial powers of various levels of government.
So, in this scheme of things, operative matters like disaster management are not expected to figure in the
constitutional provision since they are left to the prudence and wisdom of the day's government to develop an
appropriate policy and administrative structure to deal with the issue at hand.
Second, and more importantly, disaster management was not regarded as a serious enough topic at the time
of the constitution's drafting to warrant the attention of the framers and a place in the document's provisions.
Finally, the presence of a number of colonial disaster management tools, such as the Famine Code, as well
as steel-framed administrative machinery to execute rescue and relief operations during catastrophes, appeared to
be sufficient for national leaders to manage disasters in the future. As a result, disaster management was not
included in the comprehensive framework of important subject division between the centre and the states.

1
Assistant Professor at George School of Law, (BA LLB Honours, LLM)
 For a long time, in the absence of any constitutional specification, disaster management was traditionally
regarded as lying under the jurisdiction of the states, as was the colonial norm.
Given the placement of disaster-prone areas within the geographic jurisdictions of the states, the states will
undoubtedly be the first responders to crisis situations brought on by natural disasters. At the same time, the
majority of the operations involved in disaster management are local in nature and are carried out by officials at the
district and sub-district levels who are under the administrative jurisdiction of the state government.
However, as the subject gained importance in the country's governance paradigm, questions began to be
raised about the proper legislative locale for the subject in order to not only bestow responsibility for developing
appropriate policies and creating an effective administrative apparatus for carrying out disaster management
activities, but also to ensure accountability. In this light, the colonial practice of vesting responsibility for disaster
management in the states has been called into question.
Ironically, there has been an ominous trend in the post-constitutional history of Indian federalism's workings
of increasing the Central Government's legislative competence vis-à-vis states through the transfer of certain
subjects from the state list to the concurrent list of the Constitution's seventh schedule. While states have generally
opposed moves by the central government to alter the Constitution's original intent and scheme, their opposition
has sometimes reached unrelenting proportions on issues such as resource sharing and the constitution, and the
deployment of central paramilitary forces in states, particularly in the name of counter-terrorism operations.
However, when it comes to disaster management, the continuous incursion of the Central Government into the
traditional jurisdiction of the states has gone unnoticed by the states. States, on the other hand, have been
amenable to central efforts in disaster management because such efforts would not only relieve them of their
onerous burden in this thankless field of activity, but would also engage the centre in terms of financial, technical,
and logistical support.
As a result, disaster management has been conveniently allowed to become a kind of concurrent subject
over which not only the states, but also the federal government, can enact laws, initiate administrative measures,
and provide financial assistance to states, despite the fact that disaster management has traditionally been a core
competence of the states.
Despite the Constitution's relative quiet on the matter, the location of the fundamental subjects to which
the most, if not all, natural and manmade catastrophes are related can provide some insight into the minds of the
constitution authors on the legislative locality of disaster management. Flood and drought, for example, are two
main natural catastrophes in India that are mostly caused by excess and shortage of water in rivers and other water
sources in a certain location.
As a result, it would be natural for that level of government in the country's federal system to manage issues
related to water excess, such as floods, as well as water deficiency, such as drought, to which the subjects of water
and rivers have been assigned in the scheme of legislative subject division through the three lists in the seventh
schedule of the Constitution.
The application of the idea of residuary powers to the Indian constitution is another criterion for
determining the right legislative locale for disaster management. By applying this doctrine, it can be determined that
any subjects of legislative competence that have not been allocated to any levels of government through the
constitutional scheme of power divisions will automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the Central Government,
which has been designated as the repository of residuary powers in the Indian Constitution.
Because disaster management is not listed among the designated subjects in any of the three lists of the
Constitution's seventh schedule, the Central Government is the rightful bearer of legislative authority to enact
legislation on the issue. As a matter of legislative competence, disaster management may thus be construed as
falling under the requirements of article 248 dealing with legislative residuary power.
Article 248 extends parliament's jurisdiction to the subject of disaster management by stating that it has
exclusive power to make any law relating to any matter not enumerated in the concurrent list or state list. This is
because disaster management is not mentioned in any of the lists in the Constitution's seventh schedule.
In terms of constitutional provisions, entry 56 of List I (Union List) envisions the Central Government
exercising legislative authority over the "regulation and development of interstate rivers and river valleys to the
extent that such regulation and development under the control of the union is declared by Parliament by law to be
expedient in the public interest."
In terms of state government competence, entry 17 of List II (state list) specifies that states can legislate on
the subjects of "water, that is, water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and
water power, subject to the restrictions of List I entry 56." On a combined reading of these provisions, two general
inferences about their disaster management implications can be formed.
For starters, these constitutional provisions only apply to water, and they may have an impact on only a few
specific natural calamities like floods and droughts. Other man-made disasters, such as industrial accidents, and
natural disasters, such as earthquakes, cyclones, landslides, avalanches, and so on, are not covered by these rules
and hence are irrelevant. Two, even in the case of water-related natural disasters, the constitutional framework
favours the central government because the terms of item 17 of list II are made subject to the overriding provisions
of entry 56 of list I.
To put it another way, a state's ability to establish laws on water and associated concerns is limited to its
geographical jurisdiction, beyond which another state or the federal government can act. Interestingly, when passing
the Disaster Management Act of 2005, the Central government drew constitutional competence to pass the
legislation by invoking the provisions under entry 23, namely, ‘Social Security and Social Insurance; Employment and
Unemployment' in the concurrent list.

Aspects of the 2005 Disaster Management Act

Following lengthy debates and the recommendations of the High-Power Committee on Disaster
Management, the parliament passed the Disaster Management Act in 2005, which serves as the country's
foundational legislation.
The Act not only establishes national agencies and functionaries, as well as their powers and functions, but it
also establishes a comprehensive framework within which state, district, and local level bodies are established and
officials designated to carry out their assigned disaster management tasks and responsibilities.
Given the necessity to provide the broadest possible meaning to the terminology used in the Act, there are
two important omissions in the definitional section of the Act.
The efficiency and efficacy of district level bureaucrats would be considerably boosted if local governments
and communities cooperated willingly and actively. In this respect, the Act appears to be weak, as it only makes
passing references to local governments and communities in terms of disaster management planning, execution, and
monitoring in the specific area. While the Act envisions local authorities' obligations, it only lists the traditional roles
of those organisations, with no provision for integrating their actions with those of the district authorities
furthermore, rather than stressing and mainstreaming the function of the local community, it has been hyphenated
with the other agencies, as if the local community is obligated to support them in disasters. The Act appears to be
blind to the fact that the entire scope of disaster management actions is constrained by the active and willing
participation and cooperation of the local population, without which the country's disaster resilience is unlikely.
The provisions relating to the founding of the National Disaster Response Force have given the Act
undisputed laurels in its more than ten years of operation (NDRF). In fact, the dynamics of disaster management are
such that when a disaster strikes a region, the first priority for governments and other agencies is to preserve the
lives of those trapped in the crisis's vortex. Previously, such activities were carried out by security personnel and
people who lacked the necessary specialised training and supplies to conduct professional rescue operations.
As a result of the lack of timely and competently handled rescue operations in the event of disasters, a
significant number of lives have been lost. With its battalions strategically positioned in different sections of the
country, the NDRF has filled this ominous hole in the entire framework of disaster management, allowing them to
respond quickly and effectively in the event of a crisis.
Since its start, one of the most crucial and contentious parts of India's disaster management architecture has
been financing. As a result, the Act contains detailed provisions for the establishment of two separate funds to deal
with the response and mitigation components of disaster management, respectively. As a result, a Disaster Response
Fund has been proposed at the national, state, and district levels to deal with any potentially disastrous disaster
event. The National Disaster Response Fund will be made up of an amount that the Central Government may
contribute following proper authorization by Parliament by law, as well as any grant or donation provided by people
or institutions for disaster management purposes.
The National Disaster Mitigation Fund, on the other hand, is to be established for the purpose of financing
disaster mitigation initiatives and programmes. The National Disaster Response Fund will be overseen by the NEC,
while the National Disaster Mitigation Fund will be administered by the NDMA. At the state and district levels,
similar measures have been implemented for the formation and administration of the two funds.
In summary, the Disaster Management Act of 2005 is the fulcrum around which the country's disaster
management legal structure swings. Without a doubt, this Act establishes a framework for state disaster
management laws to be patterned after. This Act has aided in the development of the legal framework for disaster
management by encouraging states to draft their own legislation to ensure efficient and effective disaster
management.

The scope of COVID-19 and the Disaster Management Act

COVID-19 is the first pan-Indian biological calamity to be dealt with by the country's legal and constitutional
authorities. The present lockdown is mandated by the 2005 Disaster Management Act (DM Act). Despite the fact
that the Indian Constitution is silent on the subject of disasters, the DM Act is based on Entry 23, Concurrent List of
the Constitution, which states: "Social security and social insurance." Entry 29, Concurrent List, "Prevention of the
spread of infectious or contagious illnesses or pests affecting men, animals, or plants from one state to another," can
also be utilised for special legislation.
The Disaster Management Act of 2005 had a lot of ambition.
The DM Act was enacted with the goal of "providing for the proper handling of disasters." Under the DM Act,
the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) is the key central organisation for disaster management
coordination, with the Prime Minister as its Chairperson.
The NDMA establishes policies, plans, and recommendations for disaster management (S.6). State, district,
and local disaster management authorities were also established, with high-ranking officials in charge. All of these
organisations are expected to operate together.
The National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA) has issued 30 guidelines on various disasters, including
the 2008 ‘Guidelines on Management of Biological Disasters.' The National Disaster Management Plan for 2019
includes a section on Biological Disasters and Health Emergencies. This is the broad legal framework within which
the Union and state governments carry out their efforts to contain COVID-19.
The DM Act and the NDMA provide the central government and the NDMA a lot of power. Regardless of any
legislation in force (including overriding powers), the Central Government can issue any orders to any authority
wherever in India to help or assist in disaster management (Ss 35, 62 and 72). Importantly, any such orders given by
the Central Government and the NDMA must be complied with by Union Ministries, State Governments, and State
Disaster Management Authorities (Sections 18 (2) (b); 24(1); 36; 38(1); 38(2)(b); 39(a); 39(d), and so on.
To accomplish all of this, the prime minister can use all of the NDMA's authorities (S 6(3)). This ensures that
the judgments made have sufficient political and constitutional weight.
The current nationwide lockdown was enforced under the DM Act, as per an order issued by the NDMA on
March 24, 2020, to "take steps to ensure social separation in order to prevent the spread of COVID 19." (Section
6(2)(i)) The Ministry of Home Affairs, which has administrative jurisdiction over disaster management (S. 10(2)(l)),
published further directives on the same day.
To alleviate social sufferings, the NDMA/SDMA are required to provide a "minimum standard of relief" to
catastrophe victims (Sections 12 and 19), which includes assistance in debt repayment or the provision of new loans
on favourable conditions (S. 13).
State-specific legislation:
In addition to the DM Act, state governments have employed the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 and
numerous state-specific Public Health Acts (e.g., the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act of 1939) to address the epidemic.
Several states have established COVID-specific Regulations, based on the ‘Containment Plan for Large Outbreaks
(COVID 19)' released by the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, which is the Nodal Ministry for biological
disasters. Kerala has used its legislative competence under State List Entry 6 (Public health and sanitation) to pass
the ‘Kerala Epidemic Diseases Ordinance, 2020.' Overall, states have sufficient legal authority to cope with this
biological calamity, including penalties for defying a public servant's instruction and doing a malignant conduct likely
to spread infection of a life-threatening disease (Ss 188 & 270 IPC respectively).
The road ahead
 Without a doubt, India's large population presents an administrative problem in the event of a disaster,
particularly a pandemic like COVID-19. Overall management, on the other hand, can be improved in three ways.
To begin, a national-scale biological crisis demands strong administrative and political coordination, lead by
the Centre and followed by state governments, disaster management agencies, and other players. National and state
political and administrative agencies should collaborate and consult more in the spirit of the DM Act and federal
system.
Migrant labourer movement, food availability, arranging livelihoods for daily wagers, relief camps,
entitlement to statutory minimum relief, and other issues that directly touch millions of people in the country
require special attention. In fact, the ‘Report of the Task Force to Review the DM Act' (2013) said that the current
organisation of several bodies under the DM Act is incompatible with carrying out the functions that have been
assigned to them.
Second, the effectiveness of the DM Act's national and state choices is contingent on its implementation at
the local level; district administration and local self-government institutions remain the best option. A deliberate
effort is required to guarantee that these entities are administratively, politically, and financially empowered, as
mandated by the DM Act (Sections 30 and 41).
Finally, in times like these, constitutional courts must play an important role. Discrimination, police excesses,
malnutrition, lack of medical aid, and other issues have been reported from all around the country. In addition, there
is a bar on courts' jurisdiction (S 71) and no grievance redressal procedure under the DM Act. After assuming the role
of sentinel on the qui vive (State of Madras v. V G Row, 1952), all constitutional courts in the country are required to
suo motu register PILs and closely monitor the implementation of the DM Act in order to ensure rule of law and
protection of human rights as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
Covid-19 was the calamity that catapulted the DM Act to the forefront of all debates, even those centred on
the DM Act's efficacy. It is the first pan-India disaster to be dealt with since the DM Act was passed in 2005. Covid-19
has resulted in unprecedented measures that have been dubbed "draconian" by some.
Before proceeding with a legal analysis, it is important to remember that the virus is rapidly spreading, has
no boundaries, and our healthcare system has some restrictions. It was a challenge for the industrialised countries as
well in terms of readiness.
The hurdles for India included a low doctor-to-patient ratio, a lack of ventilators, a lack of beds per million,
and a lack of test kits, PPEs, and face masks, among other things. Different philosophies are also raising concerns
about the effectiveness of the lockdown. The unavoidable evil of lockdown has undoubtedly had negative economic
consequences, but we must not forget the lessons of the Great Plague of Marseilles, namely the need to strike a
balance between economics and the survival of the human race.
Concerns about the law
There are two significant legal issues here.
Is the lockdown, as well as the way in which it is being conducted, legal?
Second, is the Disaster Management Act of 2005 being followed correctly, and are the limitations imposed
therein valid?
The first question concerns the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, while the second
concerns the general lack of awareness of the Disaster Management Act.
There will be no violations of fundamental rights.
In a circumstance like Covid-19, the right to life, which is the most sacred right, takes precedence over all
other rights in terms of the lockdown. The fundamental right to roam freely throughout India's territory and the
basic freedom to perform any profession, trade, or business are the other two fundamental rights that are
predominantly being impacted.
Under Articles 19(5) and 19(6) of the Indian Constitution, both of the aforementioned rights are subject to
reasonable restrictions "in the interest of the general public." As a result, given the rapid spread of Covid-19 and the
necessity to flatten the Covid curve, the Centre can impose a lockdown across the country. Furthermore, according
to Supreme Court decisions, the reasonableness of a restriction must be judged objectively, and a restriction cannot
be considered to be unreasonable simply because it acts severely in a particular case.

Procedures under the 2005 Disaster Management Act and Role of Authorities
 The Disaster Management Act has a few key points that must be understood in order to grasp the full
picture. To begin with, in India, the Home Ministry is in charge of disaster management at an administrative level.
Second, the National Disaster Management Authority was founded to carry out the Disaster Management
Act's objectives, which include making effective efforts to mitigate disasters, preparing for and coordinating effective
disaster responses. The NDMA is in charge of establishing disaster management policies, strategies, and guidelines in
order to provide a quick and effective response to disasters.
Thirdly, the Prime Minister serves as the NDMA's ex-officio Chairperson. The Prime Minister can execute any
NDMA power with the NDMA's ex post facto consent.
Fourth, the National Executive Committee aids the NDMA in carrying out its tasks and guarantees that the
Central Government's orders for disaster management in the country are followed. Fifth, because the Home Ministry
of the Central Government has administrative jurisdiction over disaster management, the Secretary of the Home
Ministry is the ex-officio Chairperson of the NEC. Sixth, every Ministry or Department of the Government of India is
responsible for taking the appropriate measures for disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and capacity
building in accordance with the National Authority's guidelines.
Fifthly, each state government must implement all of the steps outlined in the National Authority's
instructions. State governments are also expected to support and collaborate with the NDMA. State government
departments have responsibilities that are similar.
Finally, the Central Government has the authority to issue written directions to the State Government, State
Authority, State Executive Committee, and statutory entities to aid or assist in disaster management, and the State
Government is obligated to follow those directions.
In terms of the Disaster Management Act of 2005, the NDMA is the decision-making authority for the Covid-
19 emergency in the current scenario. The directives are being issued by the Secretary of the Home Ministry, who is
also the ex-officio Chairperson of the NEC. The Chairperson of the NEC issued directions to all
Ministries/Departments of the Government of India, State Governments/Union Territories, and State/Union
Territory Authorities with guidelines to implement the lockdown measures under the direction of the NDMA, in the
exercise of its powers under Section 10 (2) (1).
The functions of the Home Ministry under Section 10 were delegated to the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare because the matter necessitates medical assistance (deemed to be effective from January 17). The Disaster
Management Act gives the Central Government and the NDMA a lot of power. Regardless of any legislation in force
(including overriding powers), the Central Government can issue orders to any authority anywhere in India to help or
assist in disaster management. Importantly, any such directives given by the Central Government and the NDMA
must be complied with by Union Ministries, State Governments, and State Disaster Management Authorities.
State/UT governments cannot weaken these requirements under the Act's framework; nevertheless, they
may impose stronger regulations than these guidelines to meet the needs of local areas. As a result, the Disaster
Management Act protocol is being followed correctly.
A good mix of top-down and bottom-up thinking.
The DM Act is currently being criticised as a statute that takes a top-down approach. People who have read
the sections linked to the State Plan, State Authority, local authorities, and state and district money have found this
to be unsettling.
The laws of SDMA, as well as their functions, demonstrate the state's flexibility. The State Plan is authorised
by SDMA rather than NDMA, and the Chief Minister of the State is an ex-officio member of SDMA. The SDMA's
functions make the broad framework's flexibility to the States abundantly evident.
The State Disaster Management Plan will be produced by SEC in accordance with the National Authority's
requirements and after such consultation with local governments, district governments, and people's
representatives as the State Executive Committee deems appropriate. As a result, it demonstrates a well-balanced
top-down and bottom-up approach. Because there are so many stakeholders, from village/local bodies to district
level, the State Executive Committee has been granted discretion over who should be contacted.
This allows the State Plan to be prepared on a realistic timescale. They are expected to include information
on the vulnerability of different parts of the state to various types of disasters, disaster prevention and mitigation
measures, how mitigation measures will be integrated into development plans and projects, and the roles and
responsibilities of various departments of the state government in responding to any disaster. This provides the
states with enough flexibility to micromanage the calamities they are confronted with.
 It should be emphasised that the National Plan does not include a micro-level vulnerability assessment to
various types of disasters. As a result, whereas coastal states are required to incorporate Cyclone Mitigation and
Response Plans, other states are not required to do so because they are not at risk from cyclones. Landslides may
also be present in states with steep topography, which may not be essential in plains states.
As a result, the DM Act reflects a delicate balance of top-down and bottom-up approaches, with only macro
management policies with the NDMA, which is required for uniformity, and micromanagement with the States,
which varies based on their needs. The present Covid-19 rules are a reflection of the NDMA's responsibility for
developing appropriate, consistent guidelines to manage a specific disaster situation, rather than a control
mechanism.
As a result, the approach was never overly centralised, which is why in Lockdown 4.0, the State governments
are given far greater leeway and power. The DM Act's originality and adaptation to changing scenarios may be seen
in the incremental transitions from Lockdowns 1.0 to 4.0.
The Central Government's Role
The central government's job is to aid the state government, which is otherwise functioning. The DM Act
provides appropriate apparatus and resources for each state government. It provides the three Ms – manpower,
materials, and money – to the State government as needed. The emphasis is mostly on state government
coordination and adoption of a consistent strategy for disaster management.
National Plan
The National Plan is another issue with a lack of clarity. There is no need for an epidemic national plan
because the DM Act already includes a general plan that was developed in 2016. Biological disasters and health
emergencies are also addressed extensively in the 2019 National Disaster Management Plan. Both epidemics and
pandemics are included in the NDMA Guidelines for the handling of biological disasters. All states and union
territories are required to operate under the same set of criteria.
legal structure that is appropriate
The Calamity Management Act (DM Act) is a law that establishes a legal framework and mechanisms to deal
with any disaster. The combination of the DM Act and the IPC, as well as the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897, has
been heavily criticised. It would be viewed as a strength rather than a drawback in a fair examination. Penal codes
are an essential tool in such situations, in any calamity. It is unnecessary to have two separate sets of equipment and
punishment for the same crime.
Furthermore, if any state government believes that there are some legal loopholes in disaster
micromanagement in their state, they might implement their own State Disaster Management Acts to augment the
legal provisions. In fact, just a few state governments have passed their own disaster management legislation.

Conclusion
During the 1970s, the idea of disaster management as a critical government function gained traction. For
both legal luminaries and the administration, the mid-1980s posed an interesting position.
officials to determine the constitutional jurisdiction for passing suitable legislation and coordinating the
executive responsibility for the same. In the absence of any precise information, In the constitutional allocation of
powers between the centre and the states, there is a reference to the subject.
Disaster management, apparently developed from colonial practice, has a long history. Is a state a state
because of its insignificance in the official calculations during the colonial period?
In terms of the definition of its constitutional domain, it is a topic. However, the state will soon be in a state
of emergency.
Governments understand that disaster management is just as difficult and costly as it is simple. On the
surface, it appears to be inexpensive. As a result, there was a reassessment of how to resituate the situation.
The issue is constitutionally located in such a way that the central government has an equal say.
It has a critical role to play in the overall effort to make India disaster-resistant. Almost every Committees
and commissions have been established to examine the constitution's operation as well as its implementation.
The government came to the conclusion that, at best, disaster management could be a positive experience
rather than putting it under the exclusive jurisdiction of the states. Because of the concerted efforts at the
worldwide level to make the planet disaster resistant, On the one hand, and a succession of natural calamities
ravaging various sections of the country on the other, On the other hand, it has become relatively indispensable for
both federal and local administrations states to approve special laws establishing a clear plan and machinery to
implement it.
In 2005, central legislation on the subject was passed, posing a number of federal issues.
In India, disaster management is a hot topic. For example, it was brought out that the centre The federal
government could have the authority to issue directives to states requiring mandatory compliance in certain areas.
Until today, this territory was thought to be the exclusive province of the states.
Similarly, the construction of a massive catastrophe management machine at the national level has also
been accomplished. Disaster management is still limited to developing policy guidelines and allocating appropriate
resources to states to carry out their core obligations.
There will be unwarranted intervention in the states' domain. Fortunately, because of the developmental
and the subject has not been discussed because of the humanitarian nature of the activities involved in disaster
management. It has become a topic of competition between the centre and the states. However, the problem is still
a concern.
In the future, there will be a flashpoint in the relationship between the centre and the state. The lockdown is
legal, but the success of the lockdown and the fight against Covid-19 is entirely dependent on cooperation among
numerous parties. The Central Government is in charge of political coordination.
The Disaster Management Act (DM Act) offers a proper legal foundation for dealing with any disaster
circumstances. In fact, because of its broad definition and pre-existing mechanism, it proved useful in the event of an
epidemic.
We must also take a few lessons from the countries that are dealing with Covid-19's second wave. The
economy is being revitalised with appropriate measures, and the doors of justice have also looked forward to
videoconferencing. However, the central question is whether we can bite off more than we can chew in the name of
liberty.
Isn't it time we focused more on our personal responsibilities, as August Comte suggested, and reached a
common concept of social solidarity, as Leon Duguit suggested, to deal with the current situation.
Isn't it vital for us to consider how we might provide our best to help build a brighter future? Isn't it even
more important to coordinate efforts in light of the fact that a pandemic is a unique crisis situation?
In any democracy, political divisions will always exist, but it is all the more important to unify in the event of
a national health emergency.

Suggestion & Recommendation

1. Effective communication: In the past, organisations' natural instinct has been to try to keep information
from the public. This is an incorrect strategy. By being transparent and honest, healthcare facilities may demonstrate
their value to their communities. In today's society, information will leak out in some form or another. Therefore, it's
critical that the public get accurate information from healthcare specialists rather than inaccurate information from
others.
Everyone in the organisation must be notified in the event of a disaster. To effectively manage an
emergency, all workers must be on the same page-this includes medical, legal, government affairs, and facilities
management, among others.
2. In-depth instruction: It's possible that your facility won't have to deal with an emergency for a long time.
While there's no alternative to experience, training is essential for ensuring that your employees are as prepared as
possible.
Community involvement is another crucial thing to consider when putting together a training programme.
Local ambulance services, police, and fire departments may assume full cooperation from healthcare facilities, but
such organisations often have other responsibilities in the event of a natural disaster. The importance of establishing
their functions during emergency management training cannot be overstated.
3. Assets knowledge: When faced with a disaster, many individuals panic. This creates a significant burden
on government agencies and other local resources to give aid to those affected by a large-scale disaster. Hospitals
cannot rely on outside assistance. Prior to any natural disaster, healthcare facilities must inventory their assets in
order to understand their capabilities and constraints.
 4. Protocol and technology fail-safes: A medical records department can be found in every hospital. To
function on a daily basis, those departments require a specific amount of physical space, as well as access to files and
software systems. What happens if a disaster occurs, knocking software systems offline and restricting access to
records? What will the hospital's operating procedures be? Unfortunately, healthcare facilities sometimes wait until
a tragedy has occurred before attempting to solve a problem, wasting valuable time in the process. A business
continuity plan can help you figure out what kind of hardware, software, space, and other resources each area of
your facility needs to function. It's critical to recognise these criteria so that alternate solutions can be developed
before any of them are disturbed by calamity.
5. Participation of healthcare executives: Every hospital prioritises patient recovery and safety. Disaster
preparedness is sometimes viewed as a side project, less important than the demands of day-to-day healthcare. The
capacity to keep your institution open and serve patients during a crisis, on the other hand, is a huge asset to the
community and a huge cash generator.
Leadership at healthcare facilities must recognise the necessity of a good emergency management
programme and allocate adequate resources to disaster preparedness. Employees with disaster response experience
are critical components of the emergency management process, as they keep facilities from deteriorating.
Moreover, they allow your hospital to keep operating and earning money. A well-functioning emergency
management department is a wise investment.
In an instant, a natural calamity can devastate a whole society. You lose the community's trust as well as a
big cash stream if your healthcare centre is not prepared to respond. Expert emergency management is critical for
the safety of personnel and patients, as well as the financial stability of the institution.

References
1. Disaster Management Act,2005
2. Constitution of India
3. Rajendra Kumar Pandey’s Legal Framework for Disaster Management in India
4. Devika Sharma -COVID-19 – Necessary Reflection on Disaster Management Act,2005
5. ILI Law Review