India has taken a significant step in recognising the growing threat posed by extreme heat. The Union government recently stated in Parliament that the home ministry has included heatwaves in the list of natural calamities under operational guidelines for the administration of state disaster response funds (SDRF) and the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) during 2026-2031. This decision follows the recommendations of the 16th Finance Commission, which advocated the need to include heatwaves considering the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events to climate change. India recorded 4,853 cases of heat-related illnesses between March 1 and July 26 this year.
The notification acknowledges the serious risks posed by extreme heat to people’s lives. It will change how governments will allocate funding, assign institutional responsibilities and respond to heat risks. At the same time, this decision raises a more fundamental question: can heat be governed only as a disaster?
Heatwaves, in their rudimentary form, significantly differ from our traditional conceptions of a ‘disaster’—a word that evokes a sense of visible destruction, urgency and immediacy of relief actions and active management of a natural mishap in real time during floods or earthquakes. Often characterised as a ‘silent disaster’, heatwaves do not leave a trail of visible destruction or widespread mortality that renders ad hoc approaches ineffective for long-term relief. Unlike conventional disasters, heatwaves require a priori planning and preventive interventions rather than the one-off responses that characterise disaster management. Such planning requires coordinated action across multiple sectors, including worker safety, urban design, public health, water management and land-use planning—often well before the onset of a heatwave.
Inclusion of heatwaves as a natural calamity does not automatically imbue a statutory definition for heatwaves under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The present operational definition by the Indian Meteorological Department for heatwaves is bereft of statutory value and does not include wet bulb temperatures or other local meteorological factors as triggers to declare the onset of heatwaves. The absence of a statutory definition that accommodates their localised and geographically variable manifestations may lead to uncertainty over when legal and administrative responses ought to be suitably triggered.
The recent couching of heatwaves in the language of the DM Act crowns the ‘district’ as the fulcrum of authority and action. This diverges from the ground reality as due to geographical topography, it is in cities that the impacts of the urban heat island effect are more profoundly and viscerally felt. Municipal governments possess a clear and localised understanding of heat risks, reflecting the diverse microclimates, settlement patterns and living conditions that characterise urban areas. They are therefore better equipped to tailor responses to local realities.
However, this nuanced understanding does not readily translate into action because tackling heat is not a statutory municipal function. Consequently, municipalities lack dedicated funding that can be readily mobilised for cooling interventions. While framing heat as a disaster does provide access to an increased share of funding through the NDRF, states must navigate a slow and cumbersome administrative process to secure these funds. This often undermines the timely deployment of disaster-responsive measures at the grassroots level, making the funding mechanism ill-suited to the disaster framing of heat events.
The intensity of heat experienced within cities is shaped by several factors: urban planning, which determines land-use patterns; building regulations, which influence local temperatures; and tree cover, which moderates neighbourhood microclimates, among many other factors. All of these are shaped by the everyday functions of municipal governments. Therefore, strengthening urban heat resilience requires more than disaster response measures.
It also warrants integrating considerations of heat into the legal and regulatory frameworks that govern how cities are planned, built and managed. For example, building byelaws and zoning regulations can promote passive cooling through standards for ventilation, reflective roofing materials and climate-responsive design.
City master plans can identify vulnerable communities and prioritise targeted interventions in heat-vulnerable settlements. Legislation governing trees can support the expansion and protection of tree canopy in areas experiencing severe heat stress. Municipal legislation must also institutionalise coordination between planning authorities, public health departments, labour departments and disaster management authorities, ensuring that heat resilience is integrated across sectors rather than addressed in isolation.
Conforming with a disaster framing for heat, cities are increasingly developing heat action pPlans to respond to severe heat stress, these plans largely focus on short term emergency measures rather than addressing the root cause of what makes people vulnerable to heat. For example, several action plans suggest that street vendors and gig workers avoid outdoor work during the hottest hours of the day. Such advisories overlook the harsh realities workers face, who cannot avoid outdoor work without risking the loss of their daily income.
When we reduce heatwaves to a disaster, we limit ourselves to a reactive post facto approach to the crises. Such an approach does not answer the difficult questions: how can buildings be designed better? How can green cover be increased? How can vulnerable groups be safeguarded from the impact of extreme heat?
The most effective response lies in recognising that heat is not just a disaster management issue, it is also a climate issue, a public health emergency, a labour concern and a question of justice. Until then, a government that focuses only on heatwave alerts for the afternoon but overlooks those living in poorly-ventilated houses at night is only addressing half the crisis.
Prathiksha Ullal | Senior Resident Fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
Sneha Priya Yanappa | Senior Project Fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
(Views are personal)
