By the time this article was completed, a second ship disaster had occurred off the coast of Kerala—the MV Wan Hai 503 caught fire and exploded on June 9, 2025. Rescue efforts saved 18 of the 22 crew members, while four remained missing (Reuters, 2025).
Man-made disasters—whether due to flawed infrastructure, institutional negligence, or environmental mismanagement—are among the gravest threats to public safety and governance in India today (Kumar, 2024). In Kerala, accidents such as the Puttingal temple fireworks explosion and Brahmapuram garbage fire illustrate structural deficiencies in legal responsibility for safety and environmental hazard handling. Relief in both instances is discretionary, dependent on ex gratia payouts instead of rooted in citizens' rights (Chhotray, 2014). Independently, issues such as coastal water penetration and monsoon-period flooding are an ongoing phenomenon, which suggests late institutional response to climatic vulnerabilities. Despite their divergence in imminence—accidents vs. seasonal dangers—these episodes as a whole reflect systemic breakdowns of risk forecasting, individual responsibility, and level protection for the afflicted population.
Human-induced disasters—either naturalized infrastructural failures, institutional laziness, or ecological misgovernance—are among the most serious dangers to human safety and democracy in India today. In Kerala, events like Brahmapuram waste fire, Puttingal temple fire, reveal not isolated errors but systemic defects in the legal accountability. Relief continues mostly at the discretion of officials, on ex gratia compensation rather than as citizen entitlements (Lim, Ng, & Weeks, 2020).
India's adoption of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) presents an opportunity for transformative change. However, as soft, non-binding targets rather than enforceable laws, the SDGs are vulnerable to failure in the absence of legal incorporation. The newly enacted Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is a low-hanging fruit to incorporate these global goals within national law—to make the state a proactive guardian and not a reactive responder to citizens' rights before, during, and after emergencies. We need topush for a paradigm change: from relief-as-charity to relief-as-right. Embedding SDG-compliant legal obligations into the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has the potential to transform India's disaster governance into a system rooted in justice, transparency, and resilience.
Global Lessons for India
At the international level, states and courts are reinterpreting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as legal requirements rather than inspirational goals. For example, in 2017, Colombia's Constitutional Court employed SDG 3 (Good Health) and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) to force the government to act promptly in providing water access to the Wayuu Indigenous people (Dávila, 2025). The High Court of Kenya applied SDG 3 and SDG 16 to guarantee emergency treatment (Muigua, 2021), while South Africa invoked SDG 4 in framing constitutional understandings of the right to schooling (Pellanda, 2024). These rulings imply that it is more and more being recognized that SDGs are not just policy alignment tools but instruments of justice and accountability.
India’s own Supreme Court has cited SDG 13 (Climate Action) in green jurisprudence, but such references remain largely symbolic without deeper integration into enforceable institutional frameworks (Gill & Ramachandran, 2021). Domestically, NITI Aayog's SDG Index has guided state development plans, but as with all policy instruments, not legally enforceable ones. To narrow this gap, inclusion of the SDGs within the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) would turn them into hard rights—particularly essential in situations of disaster, where policy vows perennially unravel in the face of crisis.
This legal turn is not just about compliance—it is about equity. Global disaster responses reveal persistent disparities in which lives are protected (Nix-Stevenson, 2013), whose losses are acknowledged, and how swiftly justice is delivered. A collapsed building in the Global North often triggers immediate legal recourse and international concern. In contrast, equally tragic failures in the Global South, including India, are frequently met with delayed action or silence. Are we to believe that some lives count more than others? Certainly not. Yet the structural inequities in risk governance and legal accountability continue to reinforce that very perception. India must lead by example—by binding sustainability to justice through law.
Table 1: BNS Section Quick Reference
| Section | Theme | Brief Description |
|---|---|---|
| 121–122 | Homicide | Culpable homicide and murder due to unlawful/negligent acts |
| 145 | Mischief | Damage to public infrastructure or essential property |
| 148 | Fire Hazards | Negligent acts involving fire or explosives |
| 152 | Unlawful Assembly | Gathering with intent to commit offense or resist authority |
| 157 | Obstruction | Preventing public servants from performing lawful duties |
| 216 | Public Mischief | Actions inciting unrest or misleading the public/authorities |
| 269 | Environmental Risk | Negligent acts likely to spread infection or endanger life |
| 271 | Public Negligence | Harmful public acts falling short of culpable homicide |
| 273 | Public Health Endangerment | Negligence causing harm to community health and safety |
Recurrent Disasters Violate SDG Promises
Below is a consolidated table highlighting key disasters, associated SDG violations, current gaps in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and proposed legal remedies:
Table 2: Major Disaster Events in Kerala, Associated SDG Violations, and Legal Gaps in BNS
| Event | Violated SDGs | Current BNS Coverage | Legal Gaps & Suggested Reforms |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brahmapuram Waste Fire (Kannankai & Devipriya, 2024) | SDG 3, 11, 13, 16 | 148, 273 | No criminal liability for chronic negligence by officials |
| Puttingal Temple Fire (Shokrollahi, Tridente, & Dempsey, 2025) | SDG 3, 11, 16 | 121, 271 | Absence of preventive safety audit mandates |
| KSEB Transformer Explosions | SDG 3, 11 | 145, 273 | No automatic compensation or public liability |
| Mullaperiyar Dam Risk (Sujin & Roy, 2011) | SDG 11, 13 | Not explicitly covered | No anticipatory harm clause for resilience retrofits |
| Ennore Oil Spill (Prasad et al., 2018) | SDG 13, 14 | 269 | No ecological restoration enforcement or SDG linkage |
| Joshimath Land Subsidence (Chourasia et al., 2024) | SDG 11, 13 | No coverage | Urban safety & land use risks not legally defined |
This evidence shows that while the BNS addresses individual negligence, it lacks systemic accountability mechanisms for environmental and public health disasters (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2023). Integrating SDG-linked duties can ensure these failures are not treated as routine lapses but as justiciable rights violations.
Embedding SDG Rights into the BNS: Specific Legal Amendments Needed
Table 3: Proposed BNS Amendments Mapped to SDG-Aligned Rights and Impact
The table below summarizes rights categories, required legal provisions, and their potential impact:
| SDG-Aligned Right | Needed BNS Inclusion | Legal/Policy Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Right to a Safe Environment | New chapter on "Environmental Safety" | Enables class-action suits and mandates risk audits |
| Right to Health and Relief | Expand 273 to cover state negligence | Makes delayed health responses justiciable |
| Transparent Governance | Duty of Disclosure in disaster zones | Compels real-time data release from authorities |
| Compensation & Insurance | Strict liability clause for public infrastructure failings | Automates payouts and victim protection |
| Participation & Redress | Citizen consent mandates for large projects | Empowers affected communities and upholds SDG 16 |
| Environmental Impact Compliance | Criminalize EIA violations | Strengthens deterrents and pre-emptive environmental safeguards |
| Citizen-led SDG Audits | Legalize audit frameworks with civil society involvement | Enables grassroots monitoring and ensures post-disaster transparency |
Designing Recovery with SDGs
The 2018 Kerala flood, for example, resulted in resettlement in the poorly served areas, with social exclusion instead of resilience being the outcome (Rajeev & Thomas, 2019). In places prone to landslides such as Kavalappara, reconstruction did not involve geotechnical evaluation, contrary to the spirit of SDG 13 (IMD Report, 2020). In the same manner, post-COVID recovery in Kerala overlooked gig workers and small informal enterprises (Bhan, Surie, & Jain, 2022). Transparency and engagement are also needed in the post-disaster process (Varghese, 2021).
Indian post-disaster reconstruction often gives more weight to short-term repair than long-term sustainability. The 2018 Kerala flood, for example, resulted in the resettlement of individuals in low-serviced areas, promoting social exclusion instead of resilience. Incorporating a series of the SDGs into recovery planning has the potential to make such interventions drivers of inclusive growth.
In high-risk zones such as Kavalappara, reconstruction efforts proceeded without adequate geotechnical testing, which runs counter to the spirit of SDG 13 (Climate Action). A regenerative approach would involve eco-sensitive planning, including green infrastructure, slope stabilization, and minimal ecological disruption (Gupta et al., 2023). Similarly, Kerala's post-pandemic COVID recovery neglected gig economy participants and small businesses. Leaving recovery policy to SDG 8 (Decent Work) and SDG 1 (No Poverty) would require credit access, skill development programs, and protection of the vulnerable.
Although Kerala pioneered participatory budgeting, transparency in post-disaster spending leaves much to be desired. To effectively mainstream SDGs 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) and 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), citizen-led audits must be institutionalized through online platforms to track relief disbursement, monitor contracts, and facilitate grievance redressal. A truly regenerative recovery demands more than reconstruction—it must restore with empathy, uphold equity, and embed sustainability at its core.
Reframing Collective Harm
While corporate negligence often triggers robust legal action, state failures in public safety frequently escape accountability (Goldsmith, 2002). A stark contrast emerges when comparing individual lawsuits like the Marlboro tobacco cases in the U.S. with India's mass disasters such as the Brahmapuram fire. In Marlboro's case, courts established causality and imposed compensation. In contrast, despite substantial public health consequences, no public officials or agencies have been held liable in Brahmapuram. This reflects a systemic gap in recognizing and prosecuting collective harm.
To ensure justice for mass negligence, the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita must enable citizens to initiate legal action where government failure endangers lives. Embedding SDGs—especially SDGs 3 (Health), 11 (Safe Cities), and 16 (Justice)—into actionable legal standards is essential to shift from symbolic outrage to structural accountability.
SDG Justice in the Era of Climate Change
With increasing man-made and cross-breed catastrophes, such as Kerala's flood and landslides, traditional ex gratia relief falls short. There is a requirement for a justice-oriented, pre-financed risk-pooling model on the basis of insurance philosophy that addresses systemic risk exposures and provides fair disaster response based on SDG targets (1, 3, 11, 13).
An SDG-targeted, pre-funded disaster insurance fund can codify climate justice by providing institutionalized automatic, right-based compensation, decreasing relief lag, and decreasing disparity for the vulnerable (Merga et al., 2022). Premiums will be disaster-exposure-indexed and environmentally indexed with government and high-risk industry contributions. Compensation will be automatically invoked by law infringement or by climate-related events with GIS proof for instant and transparent settlement. The management of the fund would be in the hands of a multi-stakeholder board comprising SDG auditors, NITI Aayog, and representatives of the people, providing contextual responsibility and accountability. Institutionalizing this model by way of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita or a new legislations framework would generate antifragility in disaster management and turn crises into opportunity for systemic accountability, fair compensation, and institutional learning.
Legalizing Resilience
Kerala's repeated man-made calamities reveal a sinister truth—these are not natural disasters but avoidable consequences of policy failure and governance failure. With codified responsibility and enforcible citizens' rights, they can be avoided. Relief cannot keep being dealt with as discretionary charity but obtained as a justiciable legal right. Incorporating the Sustainable Development Goals into the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita is not legislative reform in name but substance—it is democratic necessity in an age characterized by climatic uncertainty. It provides space for people to insist on transparency, obtain accountability, and influence systems that are resilient, inclusive, and just. Above all, it can have a lasting effect on the lives of the poorest and most vulnerable—the ones disproportionately hit by man-made crises—by transforming safety, relief, and recovery into tangible, enforceable rights from unmet expectations. In the realm of disaster justice, law must not be reactive or symbolic. It must lead—early, clearly, and decisively. Because in the age of escalating risks, resilience cannot be optional. It must be legal.
Appendix
Table A: International Examples of SDG Integration into Legal Systems
| Country | SDGs Invoked | Legal Mechanism | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colombia | SDG 3, 6 | Constitutional Court ruling | Enforced right to clean water for Indigenous community | (Mongabay, 2017) |
| Kenya | SDG 3, 16 | High Court ruling | Right to emergency healthcare upheld | (Republic of Kenya v. Avenue Healthcare Ltd., 2023) |
| Mexico | SDG 1, 11 | National Development Plan + Courts | Local SDG claims admissible in court | (European External Action Service, 2021) |
| South Africa | SDG 4 | Constitutional and statutory law | Right to basic education enforced | (South African Government, 2001) |
| India | SDG 13 | Supreme Court judgment (pollution case) | Directed air pollution reduction measures | (M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1996) |
| Japan | SDG 13 | Post-Fukushima regulatory reform | Institutional accountability for environmental risk | Matsuura (2016) |
Table B: Mapping of Notable Disasters in India with Existing and Missing BNS Provisions
| Event | Relevant BNS Sections | Observations / Legal Gaps |
|---|---|---|
| Liberian Ship Sinking | Public Nuisance, Negligent Acts Likely to Spread Pollution | No explicit provisions for marine ecological damage; lacks proactive penalization |
| Brahmapuram Waste Fire | 148 (fire), 273 (health) | Absence of criminal liability for chronic negligence |
| Puttingal Temple Fire | 121–122 (homicide), 271 (negligent public act) | No disaster-specific clauses tied to safety audits |
| Ennore Oil Spill | 269 (dangerous acts) | No mandates for ecological restoration |
| Joshimath Subsidence | No specific section | Urban safety and climate risk not legally addressed |
| Sterlite Protest | 268–272 (public nuisance) | Protesters charged but corporations not held accountable |
| Mullaperiyar Dam Risk | Not covered | Absence of anticipatory harm provision |
| KSEB Transformer Explosion | 145 (mischief), 273 (health risk) | No automatic compensation; no SDG-triggered liability clauses |
References
Chhotray, V. (2014). Disaster relief and the Indian state: Lessons for just citizenship. Geoforum, 54, 217-225.
Chourasia, A., Dalbehera, M. M., Kapoor, A., Kulkarni, K. S., Gaurav, G., Singh, S., & Kumar, R. P. (2024). Damage assessment of buildings due to land subsidence in Joshimath town of Northwestern Himalaya, India. Natural Hazards, 120(12), 11433–11450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06616-3
Christy KJ, C. (2024). Women protestors from the islands in Kochi: environmental justice in South Asia. City, 28(1-2), 280-292.
Davies, K., Adelman, S., Grear, A., Magallanes, C. I., Kerns, T., & Rajan, S. R. (2017). The Declaration on Human Rights and Climate Change: A new legal tool for global policy change. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 8(2), 217-253.
Dávila, J. A. (2025). Social justice and human dignity in the Global South: The case of the Colombian Constitutional Court. In Handbook of Social Justice in the Global South (pp. 403-414). Edward Elgar Publishing.
European External Action Service. (2021, April 22). Entry into force of the Escazú Agreement. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. Retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/96439/escaz%C3%BA-agreement-entry-force_en
Gill, G. N., & Ramachandran, G. (2021). Sustainability transformations, environmental rule of law and the Indian judiciary: Connecting the dots through climate change litigation. Environmental Law Review, 23(3), 228-247.
Goldsmith, A. (2002). Policing weak states: Citizen safety and state responsibility. Policing & Society, 13(1), 3-21.
Gupta, A. K., Goyal, M. K., & Singh, S. P. (Eds.). (2023). Ecosystem restoration: towards sustainability and resilient development. Springer Nature.
Kannankai, M. P., & Devipriya, S. P. (2024). Air quality impacts of landfill fires: A case study from the Brahmapuram Municipal Solid Waste Treatment Plant in Kochi, India. Science of The Total Environment, 916, 170289.
Kerala Kaumudi. (2024, June 11). Power outage in Thiruvananthapuram’s Pettah after transformer explosion; two vehicles gutted in fire. Retrieved from https://keralakaumudi.com/en/news/news.php?id=1257989&u=power-outage-in-thiruvananthapurams-pettah-after-transformer-explosion-two-vehicles-gutted-in-fire-1257989
Kumar, V. (2024). Man-Made Disasters in India. Applied Sciences Research Periodicals, 2(4), 30-42.
Lim, S., Ng, N., & Weeks, G. (2020, October). Government schemes for extrajudicial compensation: An assessment. In AIAL Forum (No. 100, pp. 79-105). Canberra: Australian Institute of Administrative Law.
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (1996). (2 SCC 353) (Supreme Court of India: Taj Trapezium Case). Retrieved from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1327342/
Matsuura, M. (2016). Regulatory responses to the Fukushima nuclear disaster: Accountability measures. Energy Policy, 90, 10–16. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515302369
Merga, B. T., Balis, B., Bekele, H., & Fekadu, G. (2022). Health insurance coverage in Ethiopia: financial protection in the Era of sustainable development goals (SDGs). Health Economics Review, 12(1), 43.
Ministry of Home Affairs. (2023). The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [PDF]. Government of India. Retrieved from https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf
Mongabay. (2017, May 22). Colombia’s constitutional court grants rights to the Atrato River and orders cleanup. Retrieved from https://news.mongabay.com/2017/05/colombias-constitutional-court-grants-rights-to-the-atrato-river-and-orders-cleanup/
Muigua, P. D. (2021). Ensuring Healthy Lives and Well-being for All Kenyans. Journal of Conflict Management and Sustainable Development, 6(1).
Nix-Stevenson, D. (2013). Human response to natural disasters. Sage open, 3(3), 2158244013489684.
Pellanda, A. C. (2024). SDG 4 in Dispute: Between the Right to Education and the Human Capital Agenda. In The Quest for the Sustainable Development Goals: Living experiences in territorializing the 2030 Agenda in Brazil (pp. 125-137). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Prasad, S. J., Balakrishnan Nair, T. M., Rahaman, H., Shenoi, S. S. C., & Vijayalakshmi, T. (2018). An assessment on oil spill trajectory prediction: Case study on oil spill off Ennore Port. Journal of Earth System Science, 127, 1-8.
Republic of Kenya v. Avenue Healthcare Ltd. (2023). High Court, Kisumu (Article 43(2) emergency care ruling). Retrieved from https://new.kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/17464/
Reuters. (2025, June 9). Explosions, fires on cargo ship off India’s Kerala coast. Reuters. Retrieved June 12, 2025, from Reuters website
Shokrollahi, K., Tridente, A., & Dempsey, N. (2025). The Political and Human Impact of Major Burn Incidents: A Global Analysis of Mass Casualty Events Between 2010 and 2020. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 10-1097.
South African Government. (2001). Education White Paper 6: Special Needs Education. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education. Retrieved from https://www.gov.za/documents/education-white-paper-6-special-needs-education
Sujin, J., & Roy, C. (2011). Risk assessment, avoidance and control during the planning, construction and stewardship phases for the dam projects in Kerala. Applied Disaster Research, 229.
Copyright © 2025. Rajagiri Business School. All Rights Reserved. Website Designed and Maintained by Intersmart