A Critique on Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897

Picture Courtesy: https://www.oneeducation.org.uk/novel-coronavirus-epidemic/

This article was written by Shachi Sawla, a student of Alliance University

India has been a witness of various widespread outbreaks of infectious diseases in the past and currently is facing COVID 19. The cholera epidemic due to the O139 strain in 1992, plague in Surat in 1994, chikungunya and dengue fever, and that of avian influenza (H5N1) and pandemic H1N1 influenza which has caused threats to the health security of India caused a huge chaos in Indian history. As in any other country, diseases with the possibility of international spread, such as Ebola virus disease and Zika virus, have also been the matter of concern.

Legislations to Combat Communicable Diseases

India has various legal frameworks which provides for health measures to be taken for the purpose of prevention and control of an epidemic, which includes provisions of IPC, the Livestock Importation Act, 1898, Indian Ports Act of 1908, Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940, Aircraft Rules of 1954, etc.

In 1955 and 1987, the Central government developed a Model Public Health Act, but failed to persuade the states to adopt this. The Public Health Act was revised by the National Institute of Communicable Disease (currently the National Centre for Disease Control) a decade ago, but the revisions have still not been approved by the government.[1]

When facing health emergencies, legal framework plays a dominant role as they provide for the demarcation of the government’s response at local, national or international level to such situations and measures of mitigating the impact of such epidemic, as well as social and economic disruptions that maybe caused by it. In the recent past, various provisions of the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 have been invoked. So it is important to evaluate this act to find out its developments in various areas.

Structure of Public Health Crisis Management System

Union Government and State Governments of India, both are constitutionally authorized to legislate on matters related to public health. When it comes to central legislation, the main framework is the Epidemics Disease Act. This act empowers central and state government to control the entry and exit at ports and to take measures or issue orders or regulations within their state jurisdiction, respectively while dealing with the dangerous outbreaks. This includes port quarantine, inter-state migration and quarantine. Central and state law may prohibit the transmission of infectious disease-affected humans, animals or plants, etc. State governments may delegate some of these powers at district or local levels through state health acts or municipal corporation acts.[2]

All about the Act

This act came into force on February 4, 1897 as a legal response to Bombay’s plague epidemic. This act consists of four sections. The first section specifies the title and the extent of the act, the second section empowers both government to take special measures and prescribe temporary regulations that are to be observed by public if they are satisfied that the state or any part is visited or  threatened with an outbreak of any epidemic. Regulations may include inspection of people travelling by railway or otherwise, and the segregation, in hospital, temporary accommodation or otherwise, of persons suspected by the inspecting officer of being infected with any such disease.[3]

Section 2A empowers the central government for inspection and detention of any ship or vessel or of any person intending to sail or arrive at ports.
The third Section provides for penalty on violating any of the regulations or orders made under the Act in accordance with section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and he/she shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend up to 6 months or fine up to 1000 rupees or both.
Section 4 provides for protection against any suit or other legal proceeding for person acting in good faith intended to be done under this Act.[4]

This act requires a notification on part of medical practitioner to the health authorities, if any person affected with communicable dangerous disease and disclosure of his identity for the purpose of better disease surveillance as it helps in planning, executing and assessing programmes for effective control.

Conclusion

The definition for “dangerous epidemic disease” is not provided under the Act. There is no clarity as to whether an epidemic is considered as  “dangerous” due to the extent or the seriousness of the problem, demographics of affected people or its contagiousness.

Instead of specifying clear duties and rights of the government, the Epidemics Disease Act is more or less acts like a guidance document. The act talks about the autonomy of the government in preventing and controlling epidemics but nowhere considers the interest and rights of the people. It is silent on the circumstances under which government is authorized to curtail the autonomy, privacy, liberty and property rights of the people. The act also ignores the human rights principle arising due to such epidemic, although individual autonomy, liberty and privacy are the basic fundamental rights as per the Indian Constitution.

Legislators may take the National Disaster Management Act 2005 into consideration while amending the present act as it clearly defines all the terms and has given an unambiguous description of all the implementing measures and agencies to be instituted in the event of any kind of public health emergency. Matters like definition of epidemic diseases, ethics human rights principles, regional extent, power of officials, enhancement of punishment, etc. can be relooked.

Many states have enacted their own public health state laws and some even have amended the provisions of their state epidemic-related acts. However, these Acts vary in quality and content. Most are just “policing” acts aimed at controlling epidemics and do not deal with coordinated and scientific responses to prevent and tackle outbreaks. Recently, many states in India have invoked various provisions of the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 to control communicable diseases.

In the current context, India demands a robust legal framework to prevent, control and spread of dangerous communicable disease. The Epidemics Act is a century old blunt act which has major limitations and needs an extensive overhaul to fight back the mounting burden of dangerous infectious disease both new and old. The new act should be more integrated, comprehensive, and actionable to control the outbreaks in India.

[1] Rakesh PS, The Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897: public health relevance in the current scenario <https://ijme.in/articles/the-epidemic-diseases-act-of-1897-public-health-relevance-in-the-current-scenario/?galley=html> last accessed on 27^th Mar, 2020

[2] Tariq Ahmad, India: Legal Responses to Health Emergencies, <https://www.loc.gov/law/help/health-emergencies/india.php> last accessed on 29^th March, 2020

[3] The 123-year-old law that India may invoke to counter coronavirus, ET, March 12, 2020 < https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/the-123-year-old-law-that-india-may-invoke-as-more-and-more-coronavirus-cases-emerge/articleshow/74593639.cms>

[4] The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Act No. 3 OF 1897,