The current COVID-19 pandemic has exposed conspicuous gaps in India’s domestic legislation. The Centre has opted to activate Epidemic Disease Act 1897 along with some other legislation in order to curb novel coronavirus in India and prevent its proliferation across the country.While this act provides the government with some extraordinary power to help combat the infectious disease, this law is not enough, as there are major loopholes that are needed to be filled.
This article reviews the entire legislation ‘Epidemic Disease Act’ and extract out its drawbacks and shortcomings. This article further advocates for a stronger legal framework to be instituted to combat outbreaks of infectious diseases such as COVID-19 more efficiently and adequately.
Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
It came into effect on 4 February 1897 as a reaction to the plague epidemic at Bombay. This act confined plague to Bombay through a series of tough measures which prohibited the assembly of crowds.
This Act consists of four sections, section 1 specifies the title and scope of the act. Section 2 empowers the State and Central Government to take preventive steps and enforce laws that are to be followed by the public in order to prevent disease transmission. These measures entail the screening of passengers commuting by rail or otherwise and the quarantine or isolation in hospital, temporary accommodation of persons accused of being infected with any such disease. Section 3 prescribes penalty for disobeying any law or order issued under the Act, in accordance to section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 4 clearly states thatno complaint or other legal action shall be taken against any person for anything done or supposed to be undertaken in good faith under this Act.
Although the Epidemic Disease Act is over 100 years old, it has a vital role to play in combating the latest corona epidemic. However, this colonial period law has many drawbacks that need modification and adjustments to brace the country for possible disease outbreaks.
Major drawbacks
-The definition of ‘lethal’ or ‘infectious’ or ‘contagious diseases’ is not given in the entire legislation. The law is unclear on the criteria for classifying an outbreak as “dangerous”, based on variables such as the severity of the outbreak.
-Some of the aspects that the act now needs to address are increasing international travel, especially the use of air travel relative to sea travel, increased migration, higher density, urbanization and industrialization. Such factors have contributed over the years to a change in the transition and propagation of communicable diseases.
-For example, the act is too much ship-oriented and quiet on ‘air travel,’ which was rare at the time it was created but is now essential to be given proper consideration.
-In an emergency response of the outbreak, the legislation does not provide provisions for the protection of human rights. It is necessary as there could be little to no legal concern about the safety of human rights during emergency times.
Moreover, this act does not provide for how the powers bestowed on the government may be exercised in breach of any existing statute. A legislation born before our first Republic Day will exist within our legislative system provided it is compatible with the constitutional provisions. The provisions of the Epidemic Disease Act have not, till now, gone under judicial scrutiny.
What is the way forward?
The creation of a new comprehensive legislation by taking a more systematic approach, keeping in mind all the above-mentioned drawbacks, is required to tackle such outbreaks in future.
Though attempts have been made in the past to amend the law. The proposed 2017 Public Health Bill, which looked at monitoring epidemics, disasters and activities related to bio-terrorism, also intended to overhaul the existing system. The bill would have repealed the Epidemic Diseases Act, but it has not yet been presented in the Parliament, and it is under the consideration of the law ministry.
However, replacing one law with another clearly doesn’t solve the problem. The efforts to curb infectious outbreaks cannot succeed without an appropriate surveillance network, strong public health systems and epidemiologists providing organizational information and policy support.
Conclusion
The global health emergency COVID-19 offers a solid chance for the Union Government to amend the country’s legislation.To prevent and control the entry, propagation and presence of any infectious disease in India, strengthening of the legal structures is required.
The Epidemic Diseases Act has considerable pitfalls in combating the prevalence and re-emergence of communicable diseases in the nation, especially in the changing and transforming nature of public health. What we require is a legislative structure that corresponds to the present situation.A strong public health regulation system guides government’s position in avoiding and regulating diseases. While there are several other minor rules as well, the need is to synchronize all regulations into a common and efficient legislation.
