Law Commission: Stricter penalties under the Epidemic Act Are Required

New Delhi: The 127-year-old Epidemic Diseases Act 1897, which serves as the foundation for the government’s legal authority during pandemics, should be amended, according to the Law Commission’s recommendations. Tougher penalties for responsible behavior and a more equitable distribution of power between the federal government and the states are among the changes that the act calls for.

Experts believe that the colonial-era legislation, which addresses infectious illness epidemics, is out of date. Following the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, the government enacted a number of changes, first through an ordinance in April and then a bill approved by the parliament later that year. These changes primarily strengthened penalties for attacks on healthcare workers and increased the central government’s authority to detain and inspect anyone.

The commission is now requesting harsher penalties for breaking government standards and laws during any health emergency, claiming that the primary law’s provisions are “not stringent enough to act as an effective deterrent.”

The panel said that the penalties for carelessness and disobedience during medical crises should be included in the Epidemic Diseases Act itself, even if it acknowledged that the three new criminal codes have strengthened the penalties for these offenses.

The research said that portions of the criminal code Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly known as the Indian Penal Code) control the punitive aspects of the Epidemic Diseases Act, which include assaults on healthcare professionals and defying legal directions.

Although the penalty under the BNS has been increased from the six months and ₹1,000 fine found in IPC Section 188 to a year in prison and a fine of ₹5,000, it may not be sufficient to discourage future offenders.

It proposed giving offenses a “statutory force” under the Epidemic Diseases Act and classifying infractions into two groups: willful acts and negligent acts, with the latter carrying harsher penalties.

Additionally, the panel believes that harsher penalties should be applied to violations that happen again or repeatedly. The study said that in order to expedite enforcement, the commission suggests making some crimes cognizable and nonbailable, with a focus on completing the investigation and trial as soon as possible.

True, there are additional BNS (and earlier IPC) provisions that are applicable, but the Epidemic Diseases Act made no mention of them. Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 271 of the Bombay News Service, 2023) punishes negligent acts likely to spread infection of any disease dangerous to life; Section 270 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 272 of the Bombay News Service, 2023) punishes malignant acts likely to spread infection of any disease dangerous to life; and Section 271 of the Indian Penal Code (BNS Section 273) punishes violating quarantine regulations. “Stricter penalties are still required for breaking government guidelines and regulations during any health emergency, even with these provisions in place.”

The panel also believed that there are “serious deficiencies” in the Act’s present provisions for managing and containing future outbreaks.

“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. The current legal framework enacted for the protection against epidemics and infectious diseases throughout the country is dispersive. The panel led by former Karnataka High Court judge Rituraj Awasthi stated in a report submitted to the Law ministry that “the new or amended Act should not only give the government mere stipulated powers, but rather it should shape appropriate response mechanisms in preventing and controlling epidemic diseases” in light of contemporary scientific advancements.

The panel recommended that the amended Act appropriately decentralize and demarcate power between the Center and the state, and that the primary task of implementing prevention and management provisions to contain an epidemic be given to local authorities and state governments in order to prevent conflict between the two.

However, it also stated that the Center should have the authority to act if the government believes that an infectious disease outbreak has become, or is likely to become, an epidemic or pandemic and that a state government is unable to stop the infection’s spread.

According to the panel, the federal government need to create a “flexible” epidemic strategy in collaboration with state and federal governments, the health and Ayush ministries, and other relevant parties. This plan would permit any necessary steps based on the urgency and severity of the crisis.

“A comprehensive framework for enforcing lockdown and limiting traffic and pedestrian flow should be included in the pandemic strategy. During any outbreak, the plan should specify which services are vital and which are not. The committee said that it should specify safe techniques and chemical solutions that are safe for biological systems that may be utilized to sanitize both people and animals.

The panel also emphasized the necessity to define “epidemic” precisely and explain the distinction between “quarantine” and “isolation.”

“Physical distancing” is a better term that should be used, according to the commission, which has proposed to define it as “an exercise of maintaining sufficient physical distance between individuals to limit the spread of infection.”

2020 saw major changes to the legislation by parliament that strengthened penalties for assaults on medical personnel.