The Supreme Court on Monday stressed the need for cooperation between the Centre and states regarding the release of funds as it considered a plea by the Karnataka government urging the central government to release ₹35,162 crore for drought relief, citing “grave humanitarian distress” and a “calamity” of severe nature faced by the southern state.

Read here: Supreme Court grants bail to YouTuber: ‘How many will be jailed before polls?’

“Let there be no contest between the Centre and states. We see various state governments (have) filed petitions for it,” remarked a bench of justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, favouring amicable resolutions of such disputes instead of litigation.

Attorney general R Venkatramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, sought time from the court to resolve the matter, expressing concern over the “growing tendency” among states to file such petitions.

“If somebody had spoken at some level, the problem could have been solved…Instead of filing 32 (writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution) they would have talked to us…We know the timing of these petitions. Lordships may not issue notice (since) it also becomes news,” Mehta pointed out, questioning the timing of the petition amidst the ongoing election process.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Karnataka, highlighted the urgency of the situation, mentioning the need to decide within a month about the release of funds, which had lapsed in December.

“Let’s hope with your (senior lawyers’) interventions, the problem can be solved,” the bench responded, asking both the attorney general and solicitor general to take instructions and inform the court. The matter was posted for further consideration after two weeks.

The Karnataka government, during the hearing, also sought to involve the Election Commission of India in the proceedings, but the bench clarified that once instructions are issued by the top court, the poll overseer would be bound by them. Sibal sought a formal notice, while Mehta suggested it may not be necessary.

In its writ petition, Karnataka pointed out the failure of the Union home ministry to take a final decision and release financial assistance from the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF), despite six months passing since the filing of a report by the Inter-Ministerial Central Team.

The Karnataka government’s plea, filed through advocate DL Chidananda, emphasised agriculture as a primary source of livelihood for a large section of the state’s population, highlighting the damage to crops and livestock due to the drought. The delay in convening a high-level committee meeting to approve relief from the NDRF was also criticised.

“The present drought situation has damaged crops and affected livestock, leading to lower yields, reduced income for farmers, and increased food prices. The situation has major economic impact resulting from losses in agriculture, impacting jobs, incomes, and overall economic growth of the state” stated the petition.

It further argued that the Centre’s inaction in releasing financial assistance for drought relief was illegal, arbitrary and violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (life and liberty) of the Constitution.

The state’s citizens’ fundamental right to life has been harmed by the Centre, which has not called a meeting of the high-level committee to address the subcommittee report of the national executive committee on the memorandums submitted by the state government requesting financial assistance, the plea said.

Last week, a similar petition was filed in the apex court by Tamil Nadu as well, which sought direction to the Centre to release ₹19,692.69 crore as financial assistance for damage caused by Cyclone Michaung in December, alleging that funds were not made available despite repeated requests.

Read here: Climate crisis impacts citizens’ right to life: Supreme Court

On April 1, a different bench in the Supreme Court had rejected the Kerala government’s plea for directing the Union government to relax its borrowing cap restrictions so that the state could borrow additional funds in the current fiscal year, noting that any such an order might set a “bad precedent in law” that would enable states to flout fiscal policies and still successfully claim additional borrowings.

The deluge of petitions by various states demanding directives to the Union government for the release of funds represents the judiciary’s expanding involvement in scrutinising federal financial relations and state autonomy under India’s intricate fiscal system.