Lockdown And Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897

  • On 24th March, 2020, Government announced a 21-day countrywide lockdown effective from midnight in order to contain the spread of Coronovirus-COVID-19.
  • Those violating the lockdown orders can face legal action under the Epidemic Diseases Act (EDA), 1897, which lays down punishment as per Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, for flouting such orders.

Epidemic Disease Act, 1897

  • The Epidemic Diseases Act was enacted on February 4, 1897, to stop the spread of the bubonic plague outbreak in Bombay (now Mumbai).
  • Using powers conferred by the Act, colonies authorities would search suspected plague cases in homes and among passengers, with forcible segregations, evacuations, and demolitions of infected places.

Provisions of the EDA Act

  • The Act consists four sections, aims to provide for the better prevention of the spread of Dangerous Epidemic Diseases.

First Section

  • It describes all the title and extent, the second part explains all the special powers given to the state government and centre to take special measures and regulations to contain the spread of disease.

Second Section

  • It has a special subsection 2A empowers the central government to take steps to prevent the spread of an epidemic, especially allowing the government to inspect any ship arriving or leaving any post and the power to detain any person intending to sail or arriving in the country.

Third Section

  • It provides penalties for disobeying any regulation or order made under the Act. These are according to Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant).

Fourth Section

  • This section deals with legal protection to implementing officers acting under the Act.

Section 188 of IPC

  • It states that any person who disobeys an order given by a public servant will be punished with imprisonment upto 1 month.
  • Thus, the Epidemic Diseases Act combined with Section 188 of IPC can result in 6 months imprisonment.
  • Besides, the IPC itself has enough standalone provisions to punish those who indulge in negligent acts which are likely to spread infectious diseases or those who break quarantine.
  • To be punishable under Section 188, the order has to be for public purposes by public functionaries. An order made in a civil suit between two parties does not fall under this Section.

Under Section 188, there two offences:

  1. Disobedience to an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant, If such disobedience causes obstruction, annoyance or injury to persons lawfully employed. Punishment: Simple Imprisonment for 1 month or fine of Rs 200 or both.
  2. If such disobedience causes danger to human life, health or safety, etc.Punishment: Simple Imprisonment for 6 months or fine of Rs 1000 or both.

According to the First Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, both offences are cognizable, bailable, and can be tried by any magistrate.


Recent Implementation of EDA Act

  • In 2018, the district collector of Gujarat’s Vadodara issued a notification under the Act declaring the Khedkarmsiya village in Waghodia taluka as cholera-affected after many people  complained of symptoms of the disease.
  • In 2015, to deal with malaria and dengue in Chandigarh, the Act was implemented and controlling officers were instructed to ensure the issuance of notices and challans of Rs 500 to offenders.
  • In 2009, to tackle the swine flu outbreak in Pune, Section 2 powers were used to open screening centres in civic hospitals across the city, and swine flu was declared a notifiable disease.

Scope for Misuse

  • While it helps contain epidemics, the Act can also be misused.
  • In 1897, for instance, freedom fighter Bal Gangadhar Tilak was imprisoned for 18 months under this Act for his newspaper Kesari‘s anti-establishment coverage of the plague, according to The Indian Express newspaper.

Limitations of EDA Act

  • There is no clear definition of whether an epidemic is “dangerous” on the basis of the magnitude of the problem, the severity of the problem, the age of the population affected or its potential to spread internationally.
  • There is no explicit reference pertaining to the ethical aspects or human rights principles during a response to an epidemic.
  • The Act is purely regulatory in nature and lacks a specific public health focus.
  • It does not describe the duties of the government in preventing and controlling epidemic.
  • The Act emphasises the power of the government, but is silent on the rights of citizens. It has no provisions that take the people’s interest into consideration.
  • The Act is not in line with the contemporary scientific understanding of outbreak prevention and response, but only reflects the scientific and legal standards that prevailed at the time when it was framed.
  • For example, the Act placestoo much emphasis on isolation or quarantine measures, but is silent on the other scientific methods of outbreak prevention and control, such as vaccination, surveillance and organised public health response.

Need of the Hour

  • The Act was formulated about 123 years ago and thus has major limitations in this era of changing priorities in public health emergency management.
  • The factors leading to the emergence and spread of communicable diseases have also changed over the years.
  • Some of the factors that need to be addressed now are the increasing rates of international travel,more extensive use of air travel compared to sea travel, greater migration within states, increased urbanisation, man-made ecological changes, changing climatic conditions, breakdown of public health measures and biosafety lapses.
  • The Epidemic Diseases Act needs modifications in the changing scenario. For example, it is too oriented towards travel by ship and silent on “air travel”, which was uncommon at that time.
  • The epidemiological concepts used in relation to the prevention and control of epidemic diseases have also changed over time.

Way Forward

  • The political scenario in the country and Centre-state relationships have changed.The Act, as such, is not sufficient to deal with the prevention and control of communicable disease in the current situation.
  • There is a need to strengthen legal frameworks to prevent and control the entry, spread and existence of communicable diseases in India.
  • There is a need for an integrated, comprehensive, actionable and relevant legal provision for the control of outbreaks in India that should be articulated in a rights-based, people-focused and public health-oriented manner.

Source : Civil Services Chronicle Online, March, 2020