Ordinance to Amend The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897

The 1897 Outbreak Diseases Act is a vital piece of law in the fight against catastrophic pandemics. COVID-19, the epidemic diseases outbreak, has recently been addressed by legislation in several Indian states. Judicial control and the need for new comprehensive legislation from the perspective of public health. The Epidemic Diseases Act was enacted in 1897 during a plague outbreak (the Act). As a result, pandemic reactions in the colonies were frequently rushed and overreacted. To combat the plague epidemic, Queen Victoria used “strong measures,” which prompted the creation of the Outbreak Diseases Act.

A Strategy Based on a Deed

With just four parts, the legislation is one of the shortest in the nation. Section 2 of the statute empowers state governments to take whatever steps and enact temporary laws they deem necessary to combat an epidemic illness. Section 2A allows federal authorities to examine and detain any ship departing or arriving in port. Anyone who does not comply with the order is subject to a penalty under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Disobedience that threatens or causes harm to human life, health, or safety may result in a six-month jail sentence and a fine of up to Rs 1,000. Section 4 of the law ensures that people are safeguarded in all of their actions (Ministry of Law and Justice 2020).

The Epidemic Diseases Act’s Limitations

We will discuss the epidemic diseases and the epidemic diseases amendment ordinance. Despite recent improvements, the Act still constraints public health emergency management. There are no procedures for the delivery of drugs or immunisations, and the legislation mandates no quarantine precautions. Experts say there is no universally accepted threshold for determining whether a disease is “dangerous” or “epidemic”. The epidemic diseases Act makes no mention of the government’s responsibility in managing or preventing epidemics, nor does it provide any civil rights in the case of an emergency. India’s Epidemic Diseases Act lacks safeguards to prevent the government from misusing its authority to violate people’s privacy.

There has been concern that the epidemic diseases act 1897 would be used for profiling, mass quarantine, and individual targeting. As a result of the absence of proper privacy restrictions, the legislation is inadequate when measured against the standards of privacy rights.

The Issue of Judicial Inquiry

One of the most important and sensitive pieces of executive legislation is the Epidemic Diseases Act. Despite recent changes, the epidemic diseases act 1897 continues to hinder public health emergency response. As a consequence of globalisation and interconnection, migration, urbanisation, climate change, resource depletion, and international travel is increasing. The term “dangerous pandemic sickness” isn’t defined in law. There are no legal requirements for quarantine processes, and there are no standards for administering pharmaceuticals or immunisations. Under the Epidemic Diseases Act, the government may intrude on people’s privacy if no protections exist.

As a result, government employees are subjected to a broad range of legal safeguards that fall well short of the privacy standards. The Act has been evaluated from judicial examination on various occasions. The Epidemic Diseases Act of 1904, despite its name, has a low profile in terms of human rights and ethical issues. COVID-19, outbreaks are only addressed in terms of legislation, with little scientific thought given to the issue of epidemic diseases amendment ordinance. In 1963, doctors were found guilty of breaching the law by refusing to undergo cholera vaccinations. According to the Court, disobedience was punishable under the legislation regardless of the doctor’s motive.

Towards a Holistic Legal System

The federal government has established basic public health services and epidemic/infectious disease outbreak management via an effective legislative framework. The National Health Bill of 2009, for example, prioritises health and well-being. Because healthcare is a state matter, it couldn’t do so (PRS India 2009). Modern law requires a strong public health infrastructure. PPP initiatives might aid in the development of long-term healthcare infrastructure. In each event, regardless of the tactics used, new legislation must guarantee that the state’s reaction is reasonable and proportionate. It is critical to differentiate between emergency and non-emergency legislation and make the distinction open and responsible to sustain public confidence.

Conclusion

India has failed to build a current legal framework in the face of a pandemic. Instead of depending on colonial-era standards, utilising physical force to enforce quarantine/lockdown measures, and relying on Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, new legislation must address the present framework’s flaws. Discontent and unhappiness spread during the Poona plague outbreak. As a result, it is time to remove this obsolete colonial statute and replace it with a more comprehensive contemporary law based on human rights and public health. The epidemic diseases and epidemic diseases amendment ordinance is the epicentre of this discussion.