Need tougher punishment under Epidemic Act: Law Commission
The commission said that the provisions of the main law are “not stringent enough to act as an effective deterrent”
New Delhi: The Law Commission has recommended for changes to the 127-year-old Epidemic Diseases Act 1897, a law that is invoked for disease outbreaks and had been the basis of the government’s legal powers during the pandemic, calling for tougher punishment for people who act responsibly and a better balance between the Centre and the states.
The colonial-era law concerns infectious disease outbreaks but is seen by experts as having been outdated. In the days after the Covid-19 outbreak in early 2020, the government made some amendments – first by an ordinance in April that year before the parliament approved a bill later that year – to mainly enhance punishment for those who attack health care workers, and expanded the powers of the central government to stop or check any person.
The commission has now said that the provisions of the main law are “not stringent enough to act as an effective deterrent”, calling for stricter punishment for disobedience of guidelines and regulations made by the government during any health emergency.
While noting that with the enactment of the three new criminal codes, the punishment for negligence and disobedience during health emergencies had been enhanced, the panel said such punishment should be laid down within the Epidemic Diseases Act itself.
The report noted that the punitive provisions of the Epidemic Diseases Act --- for disobeying orders under the law and attacks on health care workers --- are governed by sections of the criminal code Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (or the erstwhile Indian Penal Code).
Under the BNS, while the punishment has been enhanced to a jail term that may extend to one year or a fine of ₹5,000 (up from IPC Section 188’s jail term of up to six months and a fine of ₹1,000), it may not be enough of a deterrent.
It called for offences to be given a “statutory force” within the Epidemic Diseases Act in itself and violations to be clubbed in two categories: either negligent acts or wilful actions, with the latter entailing stricter punishment.
“Moreover, the commission deems it fit that for subsequent or repeat contraventions, the punishments should be enhanced. For accelerating enforcement... commission proposes to make such offenses cognisable and nonbailable, whose investigation and trial should be completed expeditiously,” the report read.
To be sure, there are other sections of the BNS (and, previously, IPC) that can be invoked, but these were not referenced in the Epidemic Diseases Act. Among these are Section 269 of the IPC (Section 271 of the BNS, 2023), which lays down punishment for negligent act likely to spread an infection of any disease dangerous to life, Section 270 of the IPC (Section 272 of the BNS,2023) , which provides for punishment for malignant acts likely to spread infection of any disease dangerous to life, and Section 271 of the IPC (BNS Section 273), which lays down punishment for breaking quarantine rules. “Despite these provisions, there is still a need for stricter punishment for disobedience of guidelines and regulations made by the government during any health emergency.”
The panel was also of the view that the current provisions in the Act have “significant deficiencies” in for the containment and management of future epidemics.
“The existing legal framework enacted for the protection against epidemics and infectious diseases throughout the country are dispersive... in the light of the need to better manage any future epidemics, it is important to revise and review the existing Act to cover the current as well as future requirements for dealing with the deadly epidemic diseases. Considering modern scientific advancements, the new or the amended Act should not only give the government mere stipulated powers rather it should shape appropriate response mechanisms in preventing and controlling epidemic diseases,” the panel headed by former Karnataka High Court judge Rituraj Awasthi said in a report which was submitted to the Law ministry.
The panel recommended that to avoid conflict between the Centre and state, the amended Act should appropriately decentralise and demarcate power between the two, and local authorities and state governments be given the primary task of implementing prevention and management provisions to contain an epidemic.
But it added that in an event where the government thinks that the outbreak of any infectious or contagious disease has transformed or is likely to convert into an epidemic or any pandemic, and a state government is not able to contain the spread of the infection, the Centre should have the power to take measures.
The commission is also of the view that the central government should develop a “flexible” epidemic plan in consultation with the state government, health ministry, and the Ayush ministry to allow actions that may be warranted on the basis of the gravity of the situation and nature of the exigency.
“The epidemic plan should contain a broad framework for imposing lockdown and for imposing restrictions on the movement of people and vehicles. The plan should demarcate as well as identify essential and nonessential services and during any epidemic. It should elaborate safe methods and biologically safe chemicals that may be used for sanitisation of humans and animals,” the commission recommended.
The panel further stressed on the need to clearly define what an ‘epidemic’ is and clarify the difference between ‘quarantine’ and ‘isolation.’
“The commission is of the opinion that a more appropriate word, which must be used is ‘Physical Distancing’ and has suggested to define it as ‘an exercise of maintaining sufficient physical distance between individuals to limit the spread of infection.’
When parliament amended the law in 2020, it primarily enhanced punishment for attacks on health care workers.