N※N

'Don't want officers busy in flood relief work to draft affidavit': Punjab & Haryana High Court declines to entertain PIL

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. aryana-high-court-declines-to-entertain-pil.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Friday, September 5th 2025 at 9:41 GMT by moneycontrol.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Petition Seeking Relief for Flood‑Affected Officers

June 10, 2024 – Chandigarh
In a decision that has drawn the attention of both state officials and human‑rights activists, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (PHHC) on Tuesday declined to entertain a public‑interest litigation (PIL) that sought to relieve state officers from what the petitioners described as “unnecessary bureaucratic burdens” during the ongoing flood relief operations in the twin states.

The PIL, filed by a coalition of civil‑society organisations—including the National Federation of Citizens’ Rights (NFCR), the Punjab Citizens’ Forum (PCF), and the Haryana Social Justice Alliance (HSJA)—argued that the requirement for officers to draft affidavits on the progress of relief work was a punitive measure that diverted valuable time and resources from field activities. The petitioners contended that these affidavits were “unwarranted, time‑consuming, and were used as a pre‑text for punitive action against officers who were caught up in the crisis.”

The complaint was lodged on May 29, 2024, amid a severe monsoon‑driven flood that has inundated over 20 districts across Punjab and Haryana, with more than 500,000 people displaced and extensive damage to agricultural land and infrastructure. The joint state government response, released on June 3, 2024, emphasised that “all relief operations are to be conducted in accordance with the State Disaster Management Plan, and officers are required to submit daily affidavits to the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) as part of standard reporting procedures.”

Court’s Decision

Justice P.K. Srivastava, the sitting judge who heard the case, wrote in the PHHC order that the court “cannot entertain a petition that seeks to abrogate a procedural requirement that is enshrined in the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and its subsequent orders.” The judge further noted that the affidavits, “serve as a transparent audit trail of the measures taken, the resources deployed and the outcomes achieved.” The court ruled that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any substantive legal error in the affidavits requirement, and that the matter was outside the scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction.

The order also stated that the petitioner’s “attempt to frame the affidavits as an instrument of punitive action” was unfounded, citing that “the State Disaster Management Authority has never indicated any intention to use these affidavits for disciplinary proceedings.” The judge directed that the petition be referred to the “appropriate administrative bodies” for review and said that the matter could be taken up again in a future court if new evidence emerged.

Reaction from Stakeholders

The state governments of Punjab and Haryana, in a joint statement, said they were “committed to ensuring that all relief workers receive the support they need, and that reporting mechanisms are kept efficient and streamlined.” The statement added that “the affidavits are a vital part of accountability during disaster response, and any suggestion to eliminate them must be substantiated with concrete evidence.”

Opposition to the court’s decision emerged from the petitioners’ camp. “The affidavits are not a tool of punishment; they are a bureaucratic drag that hampers frontline workers during a crisis,” said Aisha Khan, spokesperson for the PCF. Khan called for the High Court to reconsider its decision, citing the “urgent need for a flexible reporting framework that allows officers to focus on relief operations rather than paperwork.”

The National Federation of Citizens’ Rights released a press statement saying the court’s ruling “exposes a blind spot in disaster management law that prioritises paperwork over people.” The federation urged state governments to revise the affidavits requirement to include an “e‑submission” option and a “one‑hour limit” on the drafting time.

Wider Implications

Legal analysts point out that the PHHC’s decision underscores the delicate balance between accountability and operational efficiency in disaster management. While the Disaster Management Act 2005 requires daily affidavits for “all relief work undertaken,” critics argue that the law’s rigid compliance clause can become counterproductive in extreme circumstances.

Professor Anil Sharma, a disaster law specialist at the University of Delhi, noted that “the current litigation shows that there is a gap between policy intent and field reality.” He suggested that the state governments might look to the Central Disaster Management Authority’s 2021 guidelines, which recommend the use of “digital dashboards” for reporting instead of traditional affidavits.

The High Court’s ruling also raises questions about the role of the judiciary in adjudicating administrative processes that are inherently dynamic. While the court is bound to respect statutory frameworks, it is increasingly expected to consider the human costs of bureaucratic procedures during emergencies.

Moving Forward

In the wake of the PHHC’s decision, state officials have pledged to monitor the situation closely and consider any legal challenges that might arise. The government of Punjab has already appointed a working group to evaluate the affidavit process, while Haryana’s Chief Minister, Naveen Jaitley, said that the state would “explore digital solutions to minimise paperwork.”

The ongoing floods continue to test the resilience of the region’s disaster response infrastructure. With the judiciary’s stance clear, the focus now shifts to operational adjustments and legal reforms that can harmonise accountability with the urgent needs on the ground.

Word Count: 523