The Disaster Management (Amendment) Act, 2025, is a landmark legislation designed to enhance the capacity of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) and State Disaster Management Authorities (SDMAs) to manage disasters more effectively. Sadly, the amendment Act has not fully integrated human-rights-based approaches (HRBA) with other existing mechanisms that can help Indian disaster management.

The Good with the Gap: Preparedness

The amendment Act enhances disaster law by introducing key definitions and mechanisms for managing disaster data. These reforms are closely tied to safeguarding constitutionally guaranteed human rights in India. Beginning with the definitional foundations, the amendment Act includes a new definition of the term “preparedness,” which lists out several stakeholders, whose capacity to respond to disasters should be known and evaluated. This is a good strengthening point. The 2005 Act’s definition of preparedness raised the question: “Whose preparedness are we talking about?” In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v Union of India, the Supreme Court was critical of the Government’s approach to preparedness in disaster law, and asserted that laws and policies for disaster preparedness should not be contemplated or charted out after the disaster has occurred, but before the occurrence of a disaster [34]-[36]. The Court acknowledged that proactive disaster preparedness directly impacts constitutionally protected rights such as life, livelihood, and property [5]. The amendment’s delegation of planning responsibilities to urban local bodies is a welcome move toward decentralized governance. This shift empowers cities to tailor plans to their specific risks and needs. However, the amendment lacks clarity on critical aspects, such as funding, resource allocation, and implementation frameworks.

The Good with the Gap: Vulnerability

Another definitional foundation of the amendment Act worth highlighting in this piece is the inclusion of the conceptual understanding of the term “vulnerability”. The 2005 Act did not include a definition of the term. The amendment Act’s definition of the term “means the conditions determined by physical, social, economic, and environmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, asset, infrastructure or system to the impact of hazard.” This definition does not talk about “ability to cope” due to physical, social, economic and environmental factors or processes. The latest scientific understanding of vulnerability, as outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is reimagined as “a function of sensitivity and capacity to cope and adapt.” The National Green Tribunal in New Item versus Corum (2023) noted that “[t]he magnitude of the disaster is directly related with the intensity of the hazard as well as with the exposure and the vulnerability of the social- ecological system.” The comprehension of vulnerability is not complete without also ascertaining the capacity to cope. Although the two are closely related, they are distinct. Vulnerability describes the extent to which people or groups are open and vulnerable to damage, while the capacity to cope indicates the short-term resources and means to which one has access—such as social networks, financial resources, or institutional responses—that assist in resisting and recovering from dangers. Conversely, the amendment Act clarifies preparedness in terms of the wider ability of people to foresee, plan, and adjust to threats. This capacity dimension, however, is not included in the statutory concept of vulnerability, which creates a conceptual void.

The Good with the Gap: Databases and Omission of Certain Disasters

The amendment introduces localized disaster databases managed by municipal authorities to improve region-specific preparedness. This is crucial given India’s varied geographical and cultural vulnerabilities. However, concerns remain about data standardization and ensuring regular, accurate updates. Firstly, certain disasters, such as heatwaves and coastal erosion, are not yet recognized as disasters under disaster laws in India, and the amendment Act has not provided any clarity on this matter. This exclusion is particularly detrimental for millions who reside in areas affected by heatwaves.  Secondly, the database does not reference the existing database on disasters, namely the Climate Hazard and Vulnerability Atlas of India, which is a rich repository of existing hazards, disasters, and vulnerabilities. The Indian Government can provide clarity on integrating the existing database into the proposed one, thereby reducing several informational gaps, ambiguities, and contradictions.

Conclusion

The Disaster Management (Amendment) Act, 2025, is a crucial piece of legislation that has the potential to impact India’s disaster management efforts significantly. The Disaster Management (Amendment) Act, 2025, although not explicitly referencing the human-rights-based approach (HRBA), intersects with it through its implications for constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to life. The scope of the Act should be expanded to include climate-linked disasters, such as heatwaves and coastal erosion. A rights-based framework must be adopted to ensure the dignity of affected populations. Additionally, community participation should be prioritized to align disaster response with local realities and foster inclusive, sustainable resilience.