In the ongoing national discourse on the gradual weakening of rights-based legislations and institutions in the country, the quiet abrogation of the minimum standards of relief guaranteed by the Disaster Management Act, 2005 has not attracted the attention it deserves from analysts and activists.Minimum standards of relief refers to the package of humanitarian assistance – shelter, food, water, medical cover and sanitation – that must be provided to people affected by natural and man-made disasters, including communal riots and other civil disturbances. This also includes ex-gratia relief to the next of kin of the deceased and assistance to helpless widows and orphans.The rationale for providing such assistance, apart from the moral principles of humanitarianism, is grounded in the legal philosophy that everyone has an innate right to life. When life is threatened by natural or manmade calamities for which individuals are not responsible, the state has a sovereign obligation to protect and preserve life.The philosophy of humanitarianism is deeply embedded in the Indian civilisational ethos of seva, karuna and daan, which guided the governance systems of many enlightened rulers in history.From famine code to relief manualWhen successive failures of monsoons and crops in British India resulted in famines and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of poor and hungry people, the colonial government responded with the Famine Codes. These provided for relief works for able-bodied persons and gratuitous relief for others, besides suspension and remission of land revenue and rent. The codes explicitly cast a duty on public officials to spend only the minimum necessary to prevent loss of life – and nothing beyond that.The legacy of the colonial Famine Codes continued in independent India in several ways. Many states retained the codes, while a few changed the nomenclature to Scarcity Manuals, though the essence remained the same. Both colonial and post-colonial codes were minimalist in approach, providing only bare subsistence to affected populations rather than meeting their essential needs. Management of droughts overshadowed the management of other types of disasters.Also read: Why the Centre’s Approach to Disaster Preparedness is Riddled With Policy GapsAs the country gained experience in dealing with a wider range of disasters and as democratic aspirations grew, the Famine Codes and Scarcity Manuals were gradually replaced by Relief Manuals extending assistance to people affected by other natural calamities. Successive Finance Commissions devised schemes such as Margin Money and the Calamity Relief Fund to allocate resources to states for disaster management. This enabled state governments to broaden the scope of disaster management beyond droughts to include other natural and man-made disasters.In several states – such as Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh –Scarcity Manuals were replaced by Drought Codes, while Relief Manuals focused on the management of other disasters. However, the minimalist ethos of the earlier codes persisted. Humanitarian assistance continued to be seen as relief from distress rather than as a right enabling recovery from disaster impacts.Right to reliefThe High-Powered Committee on Disaster Management, constituted by the government of India in the aftermath of the devastating Super Cyclone of 1999 in Odisha, recommended that the global minimum standards of relief laid out by the SPHERE Project be reviewed and adapted to the Indian context. SPHERE is a global movement, initiated in 1997, aimed at improving the quality of humanitarian assistance to people affected by disasters and conflicts.It developed a humanitarian charter, based on the principles of the right to life with dignity, equality and non-discrimination, and set humanitarian standards in five core areas: food, shelter, water supply and sanitation, nutrition and health.Based on the High-Powered Committee’s recommendations, Section 12 of the Disaster Management Bill, 2005 was drafted to provide that the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) shall frame guidelines for the minimum standards of relief for persons affected by disasters. These were to include:Minimum requirements in relief camps relating to shelter, food, drinking water, medical cover and sanitation;Special provisions for widows and orphans;Ex-gratia assistance for loss of life, assistance for damage to houses and restoration of livelihoods; andOther necessary relief.Section 19 of the Bill provided that state governments may similarly lay down detailed guidelines for standards of relief, but these could in no case be lower than the minimum standards prescribed by the NDMA.Section 13 empowered the NDMA, in cases of disasters of severe magnitude, to recommend loan relief or concessional cash loans to affected persons. Section 61 stipulated that in providing compensation and relief, there shall be no discrimination on grounds of sex, caste, community, descent or religion.The Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on May 11, 2005 and referred to the Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Ministry of Home Affairs for clause-by-clause examination. This committee, chaired by the late BJP leader and minister Sushma Swaraj and including former deputy prime minister L.K. Advani among its thirty members, consulted a wide range of stakeholders, including state governments, and endorsed all provisions relating to minimum standards of relief without any change.The Disaster Management Bill, 2005 was unanimously passed by parliament and received the assent of President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam on December 25, 2005, the first anniversary of the Indian Ocean tsunami.For the first time, the Disaster Management Act, 2005 established a legal right to relief, including ex-gratia assistance, for victims of natural and manmade disasters. The NDMA and several state disaster management authorities issued guidelines on minimum standards of relief, and the Ministry of Home Affairs prescribed relief norms, including ex-gratia assistance of Rs 4 lakh to the next of kin of persons killed in disasters.COVID-19 and the right to reliefThe government of India notified COVID-19 as a disaster and invoked various provisions of the Disaster Management Act to impose and enforce nationwide lockdowns. The Ministry of Home Affairs (through Notification No. 33-4/2020-NDM-I) on March 14, 2020, sanctioned ex-gratia assistance of Rs 4 lakh to the families of persons who died due to the disease. However, anticipating a large number of deaths, the notification was retracted almost overnight without any stated reason, triggering public interest litigation.Also read: In RTI Reply, Govt Says ‘No Data’ on Compensation for Families of Doctors Who Died by Covid-19In response to a Writ Petition (No. 554 of 2021), the Supreme Court unequivocally held that minimum standards of relief, including ex-gratia assistance, constitute a legal right that cannot be denied to victims. The court ruled that the government could not escape its statutory obligation to pay ex-gratia relief, whatever the amount may be.The government responded by reducing the ex-gratia amount drastically to Rs 50,000 and by imposing stringent certification requirements, which resulted in the exclusion of many victims.Abrogation of the right to reliefThe government has now completely withdrawn from its legal responsibility to provide minimum standards of relief by deleting sections 12, 13 and 19 of the Disaster Management Act, and by removing the word “compensation” from Section 61. This move was never part of the amendment agenda that had been under discussion for more than a decade.In December 2011, the Union government constituted a task force under the chairmanship of Dr P.K. Mishra (currently Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister) to review the Act and suggest amendments. The task force submitted its report in March 2013, proposing several changes – but none relating to the minimum standards of relief.There was no demand, suggestion or request from any quarter to delete those provisions. The thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth finance commissions, which comprehensively examined the country’s disaster risk management system and recommended certain legal reforms, also did not suggest any change to the minimum standards of relief.Neither the statement of objects and reasons nor the notes on clauses appended to the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024 provided any explanation for the deletion of these crucial provisions. Nor did the Home Minister’s lengthy response during debates in both houses of parliament.This unwarranted and unjustified abrogation of the right to minimum standards of relief is a retrograde step. It does not augur well for the efficiency, accountability or transparency of disaster risk governance in the country.