The Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024, seemingly represents India’s legislative response to the challenge of resolving the policy dichotomy between reactive disaster governance and proactive disaster risk governance (DRG). This study provides a comprehensive, multi-layered evaluation, combining a thematic analysis of the foundational DM Act, 2005, with syntactic and semantic analysis of the Amendment Bill’s provisions and mandates. A novel multi-parametric sentiment analysis framework, utilizing Structured Expert Elicitation (SEE) across 18 parameters, quantified the professional reception within India’s quasi-federal context. Key findings revealed a statistically significant inverse correlation as greater professional experience correlated with lower agreement on the amendments, signalling deep skepticism regarding implementation feasibility. The analysis identifies a centralization-devolution paradox in its provisions, operational efficacy risks of critical operational devolution as in case of Urban Disaster Management Authorities and the Bill’s failure to fully integrate escalating climate-induced risks and establish minimum standards for post-disaster relief, undermining both adaptive capacity and equitable support. The findings underscore that the Bill’s success hinges on pertinent statutory and fiscal calibration to bridge the gap between progressive disaster risk governance rhetoric and administrative reality.
Kanji et al. (Wed,) studied this question.