SC directs Assam authorities to examine concerns raised over recurring floods and erosion

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a PIL seeking measures to address recurring floods, erosion and drainage problems in Assam, saying the issue was not essentially legal. It directed authorities named in the plea to examine the concerns and take remedial measures

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to ensure effective measures to address recurring floods, riverbank erosion and drainage-related problems in Assam and the Brahmaputra Valley.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant declined to entertain the plea filed by advocate Ujjawal Gaur but directed the registry to forward a copy of the petition to all the respondent authorities, asking them to examine the issues raised and take appropriate remedial measures.

---

Appearing in person, Gaur submitted that the administrative lapses highlighted in the petition were amenable to judicial scrutiny and urged the apex court to issue notice to the authorities. However, the CJI-led Bench observed that the suggestions and deficiencies highlighted by the petitioner ought to draw the attention of the concerned authorities, but the issue was “not essentially legal” in nature.

The PIL had sought judicial intervention to ensure effective implementation of the statutory framework governing flood and erosion management. It also proposed a high-level expert mechanism to examine the recurring problems.

The petitioner contended that the recurring devastation caused by floods could not be treated as wholly inevitable when statutory frameworks and specialised institutions had been created for flood control, riverbank erosion and drainage management.

The plea referred to the Brahmaputra Board Act, 1980, the Assam Embankment and Drainage Act, 1953, and the River Boards Act, 1956, arguing that these laws contemplated scientific investigation, integrated river-basin planning and implementation of measures relating to floods, erosion and drainage.

It relied on successive reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), which, according to the petitioner, had recorded deficiencies in flood-control planning, execution and maintenance, drainage management, floodplain management and monitoring of projects.

The petition specifically referred to the CAG’s Performance Audit on “Flood Control in Assam”, contained in Report No. 5 of 2018. It claimed that the report identified deficiencies in integrated basin-wise planning, floodplain zoning, hydrological and morphological studies, and the execution and monitoring of flood-control works.

It also relied on official records concerning drainage congestion, backflow, inadequate drainage through sluices, encroachment upon natural drainage channels, sedimentation and river morphology as factors aggravating flood vulnerability.

The petitioner further highlighted a shortage of technical manpower in the Brahmaputra Board, referring to an official Lok Sabha reply dated December 12, 2024, which disclosed that 65 of its 182 sanctioned technical posts remained vacant in 2024.

The plea also referred to a CAG State Finances Audit Report, claiming that Rs 1,112.50 crore remained uninvested in the State Disaster Response Fund as of March 31, 2025, and pointed to savings of Rs 555.13 crore under the Water Resources grant during 2024-25.

The petitioner argued that the issue was not about eliminating floods altogether or directing authorities on specific engineering designs, but ensuring that statutory institutions discharged the functions entrusted to them.

The plea sought directions for updated scientific hydrological, morphological and drainage studies; an integrated basin-wide flood, erosion and drainage management framework; assessment and maintenance of flood-control infrastructure; protection of natural drainage channels and vulnerable floodplains; strengthening of technical capacity; and mechanisms for monitoring and accountability.

The petitioner had sought directions to the Union government, Central Water Commission, National Disaster Management Authority, Brahmaputra Board, Assam government and other concerned states and authorities.