Requisitioning Private Buses During a Cyclone Evacuation
A severe cyclonic storm is forecast to make landfall in 36 hours in a delta district of Andhra Pradesh. The collector must evacuate 9,000 people from 14 low-lying villages. The state transport corporation can provide 40 buses; another 25 are needed. A private operator runs 30 buses on inter-district routes. Under the Disaster Management Act the collector may requisition private vehicles, but the operator protests: requisitioning will cancel Rs 6 lakh of booked pilgrim traffic, his drivers are unwilling to enter flood roads, and his insurance does not cover cyclone-zone operation. Two of his buses are already 12 years old and one has a failed brake-light. The evacuation window closes at nightfall. The collector also has 200 volunteers and 6 boats.
1. Should the collector requisition all 25 private buses? Reason through the legal power, the risk, and the alternatives.
Read the worked answer
The legal power is clear - the DM Act allows requisition of private vehicles for disaster response - but a legal power is a ceiling, not an instruction. The decision should be proportionate:
- Requisition what is fit and needed, not everything. The 12-year-old buses and the one with a failed brake-light should be excluded on safety grounds; requisitioning an unsafe vehicle into a cyclone zone transfers risk to the state and to passengers.
- Match capacity to the actual gap. 9,000 people is not 25 buses' worth in one trip - buses run shuttles. The real constraint is the nightfall window and road condition, not the raw count. With 40 state buses shuttling and 6 boats for the waterlogged hamlets, the gap may be 12–15 roadworthy private buses on repeated trips.
- Pay and protect. Requisition must come with a written order, a compensation formula for the cancelled bookings, and a state indemnity for the drivers - the operator's insurance gap is exactly the kind of risk the state should absorb in a disaster, not push onto a private citizen.
- Use volunteers and boats where they are better. Boats for the last-mile hamlets, volunteers for door-to-door mobilisation and for people who refuse to leave.
So: requisition a subset, with compensation and indemnity, and keep the rest of the operator's fleet available for a second wave if the forecast worsens.
2. Half the villagers refuse to evacuate, saying they stayed through the 1977 cyclone. What is the ethical course?
Read the worked answer
Refusal must be met with persuasion, not force - forced evacuation of competent adults is legally and ethically shaky, but so is abandoning them.
- Respect agency while informing it. Give the forecast, the track, the surge height and the 1977 comparison honestly. People who survived 1977 may be underestimating a stronger storm; do not patronise them, correct the record.
- Protect the vulnerable regardless of household choice. Children, the elderly, the disabled and the sick should be moved even if the household head refuses - this is the line where individual choice cannot override a duty of care.
- Make staying survivable. Identify the strongest buildings, pre-position food, water, and a radio, and record who stayed and where, so rescue teams know whom to look for.
- Do not use coercion as a shortcut. Force breeds resistance and litigation; a documented, informed refusal shifts moral and legal responsibility to the refuser, but the state still owes rescue.
The tested value is balancing paternalism and autonomy: the collector is not the villagers' guardian, but is the guarantor of the vulnerable.