Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions for stronger and more effective measures to address recurring floods, riverbank erosion and drainage problems in Assam and the Brahmaputra Valley.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant refused to take up the plea filed by advocate Ujjawal Gaur, but directed the court registry to forward a copy of the petition to the concerned respondent authorities.
The Bench asked the authorities to examine the issues raised in the petition and take appropriate remedial measures.
Appearing in person, Gaur argued that the administrative shortcomings highlighted in his petition were matters that could be examined judicially and urged the court to issue notice to the authorities.
The CJI-led Bench, however, observed that while the suggestions and deficiencies highlighted by the petitioner deserved the attention of the concerned authorities, the matter was “not essentially legal” in nature.
The PIL had sought judicial intervention to ensure the effective implementation of existing statutory mechanisms for flood control, riverbank erosion and drainage management in Assam. It also proposed the creation of a high-level expert mechanism to examine the recurring challenges.
The petitioner argued that the widespread destruction caused by recurring floods could not be considered entirely unavoidable, particularly when specialised institutions and statutory frameworks were already in place to deal with flood and erosion-related concerns.
The plea referred to the Brahmaputra Board Act, 1980, the Assam Embankment and Drainage Act, 1953, and the River Boards Act, 1956, contending that these laws provide for scientific studies, integrated river-basin planning and measures to address flooding, erosion and drainage.
The petitioner also cited successive reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), which, according to the plea, highlighted shortcomings in flood-control planning, implementation and maintenance, drainage management, floodplain regulation and monitoring of projects.
Particular reference was made to the CAG’s Performance Audit on “Flood Control in Assam”, contained in Report No. 5 of 2018. The petition claimed that the audit identified gaps in integrated basin-level planning, floodplain zoning, hydrological and morphological studies, as well as the execution and monitoring of flood-control measures.
The plea further pointed to official records concerning drainage congestion, backflow, inadequate drainage through sluice gates, encroachment on natural drainage channels, sedimentation and changes in river morphology, arguing that these factors were contributing to Assam’s vulnerability to recurring floods.
While the Supreme Court did not entertain the PIL, its direction to circulate the petition to the concerned authorities leaves the issues raised open for consideration and remedial action by the relevant government agencies.