TRISHA MISHRA | The Epidemic Disease Act 1897 (hereinafter referred as Act), was enacted by the British parliament to prevent the spread of Bubonic plague epidemic which had started to spread rapidly and resulted in large number of deaths. The same Act has been implemented by the Indian government yet again to contain the novel coronavirus, which has created a havoc all over the world.
This is the shortest law of the country with only four sections and this is being used to contain an epidemic like coronavirus. Further, this shortest law was made at a time when no technological or medical advancement were made. The archaic Act lacks the required diligence and responsive government body to give a new and innovative policy solution to tackle the 21st century problems. Will it be appropriate to implement this colonial era Act to deal with this modern day crisis?
RELEVANCE OF EPIDEMIC DISEASE ACT
The relevance and applicability of the Act has become a topic of debate in the present scenario, as it has been put in force to look after the prevailing situation of the country. This Act has some major setbacks which makes it inappropriate to be implemented as weapon against coronavirus.
THE TERM EPIDEMIC DISEASE IS NOT DEFINED
The first thing that the Act is missing is the very definition of the term “epidemic disease”. It is a basic understanding that without a solid foundation, you’ll have trouble creating anything of value. Similarly, without definition of words like ‘epidemic disease’, ‘lethal’, ‘contagious’, how can an outbreak be classified as dangerous. The Indian government has declared COVID-19 a “notified disaster”. Without understanding the circumstances, how can a disease be termed as a disaster?
Not only this, the Act lacks the ability to understand the contemporary and modern scientific methods to prevent an outbreak. The only response to such outbreak that the Act talks about is quarantining, which might have been enough to prevent the spread during the old times but that’s not the case in present times. The Act should, in addition to quarantining, include vaccination, sanitization, easy accessibility of mask, PPE kits, availability of proper healthcare, and other measures which will efficiently contain such communicable disease.
THIS ACT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE PRESENT MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION
This Act was made at a time when the sea was the most used mode of travel, but now the case is different. In present time the most of the international travel happens via air, but the Act is quiet on air travel and is more focused on waterways. Section 2A of the Act says, the Central Government may take measures and prescribe regulations for the inspection of any ship or vessel leaving or arriving at any port, stands obsolete if is viewed from the present context. According to International Civil Aviation Organization, 4.3 billion passengers used scheduled air services in 2018, in comparison to just 28.5 million people who travelled on a cruise ship in the same year. Therefore, the Act has to be molded accordingly, as air travel is the most convenient and cost effective mode, preferred by more than half of the population of the country.
THE ACT IS SILENT ON ETHICAL ASPECTS
This Act is the only law which has the power to deal with epidemic disease, but still the nature of the Act is merely regulatory i.e. power conferring. It does not specify duties towards citizens in prevention of disease and related problems of moral nature. Section 2 and Section 2A of the Act gives power to state government and the central government respectively, to take special measures and prescribe regulations that are to be observed by public to contain the spread of disease. This means it only talks about the power of the government, but is silent on the ethical aspects or human right principles. As a result of this, certain sections of people have been rejected for example, people with existing medical conditions are not able to get required medical help due to the closure of OPDs and extra burden on the hospitals, further there has been an increased in the instances of racial abuses particularly against the people of north-east India, moreover, people are being stigmatized for being infected with corona virus and are being shunned from the community. These are just few of the instances of violation of basic rights of people. Even during the enforcement of the Act these basic fundamental rights should not be overlooked. It should contain clear executive instructions rather than just giving arbitrary power in the name of epidemic.
THE ACT DOES NOT ENVISAGE MODERN DAY PROBLEMS
Another problem which has come to the horizon in the wake of the outbreak is the influx of migrants. This Act was made at the time when the migration to urban areas had not started, therefore the Act does not envisage any provision in relation to this. According to the 2011 census, every third person is a migrant in Delhi and Mumbai and every one of the six living in these cities is living in a slum. During the time of epidemic these issues of migration and slum becomes a problem especially for the poor migrants. Firstly, large number of people living in these slums leads to cramping up that makes implementation of preventive measures like social distancing difficult. Secondly, closure of factory and other workplaces leads to loss of jobs for these poor migrants, forcing them to move back to their hometown, which results in movement of people at the same time, doubling the risk of community spread. The Act should include provision which protects the interests of these poor migrant worker in this difficult time.
NEED FOR AN UMBRELLA LEGISLATION
There are number of legislation along with the Act that is at work to support public health during this epidemic such as, the Disaster Management Act 2005 which delegates power to the home secretary to enhance preparedness for the outbreak, further, the Indian Penal Code 1860, prescribes punishment for negligently and malignantly spreading of disease along with many other municipal acts to contain the spread of COVID-19. However, efforts should be made to bring these provisions of these legislation under one umbrella by coming up with a strong public health legislation, which can single handedly deal with such epidemic situation in a more efficient manner.
The Act has clearly not aged like a wine, and has many drawbacks, to deal with the current situation. The ongoing epidemic calls for a more updated and modern law to deal with the current situation. It cannot be tackled by clinging onto the colonial Act with its traditional regulation. The nature of the disease is contemporary thus it needs to be tackled in a different way keeping in mind the contemporary issues.
The Indian government did take notice of all the drawbacks and introduced a bill called ‘Public health (prevention, control, and management of epidemics, bio-terrorism and disasters) bill, but this effort of the government did not turn out to be a success.
This unexpected outbreak has broken down the whole system in just a blink of an eye. It has bought everything to an abrupt stop. The government should either amend the Act or pass the above mentioned bill to deal with the disease effectively. The things have already worsened to a large extent, but it should not be left to be worsened to the point from where it becomes beyond repair.
The Act needs an immediate amendment as it fails to contain the spreading of the disease. A committee should be made comprising of medical professionals, legal professional and government officials. Along with this there should be a way in which the suggestions of common people can also be taken. This way the decision taken will be holistic in nature.
CONCLUSION:
The need of the hour, is to effectively prevent the disease from spreading along with keeping in mind the right and safety of the people of the country. While coming up with plans and policies the makers should not only ensure prevention and control of corona virus but also avoid the entry and existence of the disease in India. The Act should be designed keeping in mind all the drawbacks, so that we can come up with an Act which is compatible with the dynamic changes, addressing the ethical issues and finally catering to the needs of public health.
Trisha Mishra is a third- year student of National Law University, Jodhpur. She can be reached at trisha1331@gmail.com.
Photo Source: Getty Images
Cup of Court 