Logical Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 62

The Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill is knotty

On August 1, 2024, the central government introduced the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha. Brought in in the wake of climate-induced disasters, the Bill shows much evidence of a further centralisation of an already heavily-centralised Disaster Management Act, 2005. This Act, in its current form, already mandates the creation of many authorities and committees at the national, State and district levels. The proposed Bill further provides statutory status to pre-existing organisations such as the National Crisis Management Committee and a High Level Committee, complicating the chain of action to be followed in case of disasters. A repercussion of this top-down approach is seen when there is a delayed response to disasters, antithetical to the intent and purpose of the Act.

The Bill aims to strengthen the working of the National Disaster Response Fund and authorises the State Disaster Management Authorities to prepare State and national level plans. It also establishes a “District Disaster Management Committee” for urban areas, and effectively withdraws municipalities’ powers. However, this extended centralisation creates decision bottlenecks and replicates communication weaknesses, thus making more problems than it solves.

Centralisation as a solution

In 2022, only one-third of the response fund disbursements proposed by the State Disaster Response Fund received timely approval from the National Disaster Response Fund, due to communication gaps. For instance, disaster relief funds from the NDRF were denied to Tamil Nadu and disbursed much later to Karnataka.

In the backdrop of a looming climate crisis, there is a need to revisit the very idea of disasters under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

Restricted definition of ‘disaster’

On July 25, 2024, the Minister of State of Science, Technology and Earth Sciences, in response to questions posed in the Lok Sabha, said that the government is currently not planning to classify heatwaves as a notified disaster under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. This statement was out of line with the observations of the 15th Finance Commission which did not find merit in the current listed loads of eligible for assistance under the National Disaster Response Fund/State Disaster Response Fund are cyclone, drought, earthquake, fire, flood, tsunami, hailstorm, landslides, avalanche/cloudbursts, pest attack, frost and cold waves, but not heatwaves.

The exclusion of heatwaves as a notified disaster marks a major gap in the management of disasters, given their increasing frequency and devastation across the country. While floods and droughts affect millions, their definition as disasters needs a review. The definition under the 2005 Act is static. This is because the notified list of disasters under the Act restricts the inclusion of climate-induced disasters such as heatwaves which display regional variability and gradation specific to a geographical area. For example, a regional summer temperature of 40°C in several north Indian States may classify as elevated heat conditions in the Himalayas. The definition therefore, is also highly indicative of the absence of impact. A regional heatwave cannot be able to be considered as a natural disaster even if its impacts are as profound as traditional disasters when it comes to terms of the loss of human life. This poses a significant risk by not providing adequate policy and planning to mitigate the nature of climate-induced disasters as statutorily linked to notified disasters (traditional disaster under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the proposed Bill). The incongruity is exacerbated by the localised nature and impact of climate-induced disasters.

Relevant issues

However, some questions are still valid. Is the proposed Bill adept to tackle contemporary challenges arising at the grassroots and local governments? Do States retain their constitutional powers for disaster management? As per the Disaster Management Act, 2005, it provides very little in terms of financial remit for states, directly increasing their financial limitations when responding to climate-induced disasters. There is thus an urgent need to revisit the chain of command and the impact of centralisation given the rise of climate change-induced events.

The commentary and most responses focused on increasing the extent of innovative disaster management at State and local levels. The argument is that more can be done to manage disasters and drive civil society away from centralised response that will move away from not realising the true spirit of cooperative federalism.

Question 1: Which of the following best captures the central theme of the passage?

A) The centralisation of disaster management authority as a solution to disaster response delays.

B) The impact of climate change on disaster frequency and intensity in India.

C) The inadequacies of the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill in addressing climate-induced disasters.

D) The need for cooperative federalism in disaster management.

Question 2: Which of the following can be inferred about the author’s stance on the centralisation of disaster management?

A) The author believes centralisation hinders effective disaster management.

B) The author is neutral about the centralisation of disaster management.

C) The author thinks centralisation is necessary but should be balanced with financial autonomy.

D) The author supports further centralisation to ensure quick responses to disasters.

Question 3: The author mentions the exclusion of heatwaves from the notified list of disasters. What does this suggest about the current approach to disaster management?

A) The current approach is inclusive but needs minor adjustments.

B) The current approach is flexible and adaptive to new types of disasters.

C) The current approach is primarily focused on traditional natural disasters.

D) The current approach is static and fails to consider emerging climate-related challenges.

Question 4: What does the author imply about the effectiveness of the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill in decentralising functions?

A) It decentralises functions and ensures sufficient financial resources.

B) It successfully decentralises disaster management at the local level.

C) It centralises functions while pretending to decentralise.

D) It decentralises functions but fails to provide adequate financial support.

Question 5: Based on the passage, which of the following is a likely consequence of the proposed Bill’s approach to disaster management?

A) Increased delays in disaster response due to complex bureaucratic processes.

B) More efficient and quicker disaster response at the state level.

C) Better management of climate-induced disasters like heatwaves.

D) Enhanced financial autonomy for states to manage disasters.

Question 6: What does the author mean by “the incongruity is exacerbated by the localised nature and impact of climate-induced disasters”?

A) Climate-induced disasters affect all regions equally, yet are managed centrally.

B) The central government is better equipped to handle localised disasters.

C) Local governments are fully capable of managing climate-induced disasters without central intervention.

D) Climate-induced disasters have different impacts depending on the region, making a centralised approach less effective.