THE LEGALITY OF QUARANTINE POWERS
The severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus-2 causes the Novel Corona virus, covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2). The World Health Organization has labelled it a pandemic, and it is an unparalleled global health disaster. The magnitude of the consequences is yet unknown, but it is apparent that the world has ground to a halt. Globally, quarantines and travel bans have been implemented. People in India have also been subjected to legally mandated quarantine or self-quarantine. In this scenario, mitigating and controlling the COVID-19 epidemic in India is critical not just for India but also for the rest of the globe.
Historically, India has used common law remedies to enforce quarantine, which have shown to be successful in times of epidemics and pandemics. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses offences affecting public health, safety, convenience, decency, and morality, and is divided into two primary sections: one dealing with public nuisance and the other with the quarantine rule. The Epidemic Diseases Act is an addition to the IPC legislation. This 1897 ordinance was adopted to combat the outbreak of the bubonic plague in Mumbai, erstwhile British India, and is commonly used to limit epidemics such as cholera, malaria, dengue fever, and swine flu. The quarantine law has been extended until May 3, 2020, and a nationwide lockdown has been imposed. The idea of quarantine calls for social distance in order to restrict the virus's transmission and to take measures to assure the continuity of critical services and supplies. The current scenario in India in the midst of COVID-19 stems from Sections 6(2)(1) and 10(2)(1) of the Disaster Management Act, which govern quarantine law enforcement and health protection.
The quarantine legislation and people's and the state's compliance with it are unarguable. Courts have traditionally favoured the State's ability to enforce. In public health, "quarantine" refers to the separation of individuals (or groups) who have been exposed to an infectious illness. In contrast, ?isolation? refers to the separation of those who are known to be diseased. The applicability of the common law remedy in this situation is a one-of-a-kind inquiry in modern parlance from the standpoint of health care services, access to medications, and therapeutic view of medical delivery. It is worth noting that when the IPC was adopted one hundred sixty years ago, 200 (INR) was considered expensive. The continuation of a public nuisance after an injunction is an example of a continuing and subsisting nuisance. This type of disturbance is punished by six months in jail, a fine, or both under Section 291 of the IPC.
Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code makes it easier to apply the IPC (CrPC). However, the magistracy is not reliant on police reports or other sources of information, and he has the authority to gather evidence as he deems fit.
The quarantine clause of the IPC is a critical component of public nuisance control. Sections 188, 269, 270, and 271 of the IPC, as well as Section 133 of the CrPC, are crucial in the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic and lock-down orders. Section 269 of the IPC contains the relevant provision relating to a negligent act likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life: ?Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act knowingly to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life shall be punished with imprisonment for six months and a fine or both.?Section 270 further states that any malignant conduct likely to transmit illness or sickness hazardous to life is punishable by a two-year jail sentence. Section 271 further states that violating a quarantine regulation is punishable by six months in jail or a fine.
To manage COVID-19, the Cabinet Secretary of India implemented Section 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act in all Indian states and union territories on March 11. It gives the state government the authority to take additional precautions and impose rules in the event of a hazardous epidemic disease.The Act gives the Central Government the authority to take steps and issue regulations for the inspection of any ship and the detention of any person planning to sail to and arrive at any port. Section 3 of the Act provides for a 6-month jail sentence, a fine, or both (similar to the IPC). Section 4 protects officials operating in good faith to enforce the law from any litigation or other legal process. Historically, this colonial ordinance was used in India to combat cholera in Gujarat, malaria in Chandigarh, dengue fever in Delhi, and swine flu in Pune.
COVID-19 also has a social impact. According to Article 47 of the Indian Constitution, the state has a primary responsibility for nutrition security, living standards, and public health development. In Municipal Council Ratlam V. Vardichand, the Supreme Court decided in exercising such authority, the court must be guided by the wider concept of access to justice The Court based its decision on Article 38 of the Constitution's egalitarian ideals. Nonetheless, before the State's enforcement, the courts have the authority to interfere on the grounds of rationality and procedural readiness. This issue was addressed in the public interest case Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India. The writ drew attention to the hardship of thousands of migrant workers and their families who were trekking hundreds of kilometres from their job to their villages and towns in defiance of the COVID-19 lock-down order. The jobless and migrant workers who are trapped without transportation are little more than forced prisoners in the Midwest. The police operations under Section 188 of the IPC were justified, yet they resulted in abuses of persons in need. The closure of state borders has hampered free movement and prevented the delivery of vital supplies.
Curfew is not the same as lockdown. One of the most significant distinctions between the two is that during a lockdown, state enforcement officials such as police cannot arrest anyone for failing to comply with the lockdown without the consent of the appropriate court.
They can, however, impose a lockdown using the mechanisms provided in Indian Penal Code Sections 188 (disobedience to a public servant's directions), 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life), and 270 (malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life).
Again, 'curfew' is not a legal phrase. In general, the exercise of a power available to the District Magistrate, SDM, or any other executive magistrate under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is referred to as a "curfew" in common language.
Such orders may be issued by the authorities in these circumstances to avert risk to human life, health, or safety, disruption of public peace, or a riot or affray. If someone disregards such orders issued under Section 144 CrPC, enforcement authorities have the authority to detain/arrest the violators.
The words ?quarantine' and ?isolation' have now been specified under the Indian Aircraft (Public Health) Rules, 1954. Similar limitations apply to passenger ships, cargo ships, and cruise ships under the Indian Port Health Rules 1955, which were enacted under the Indian Port Act.
The term "quarantine" refers to the restriction of activities and/or separation of suspect persons from others who are not ill, as well as the separation of suspect baggage, cargo, containers, aircraft or conveyances, facilities, goods, and postal parcels in order to prevent the spread of infection or contamination.
Isolation refers to the isolation of sick or polluted people or impacted baggage, containers, aircraft or transportation, facilities, commodities, or mail packages from others in order to avoid the spread of illness or contamination. Similar prohibitions are included in the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897, albeit they are not specified.
In comparison to other nations, the COVID-19 epidemic in India is very young. Proper surveillance and transparent reporting of affected persons' characteristics are required. When a big section of the world, including India, is under lockdown, the economy of those countries suffer. Governments and international organisations must devise a contingency plan in the absence of a quick vaccination to prevent the spread. With a few exceptions in select areas, India's public health care system is dismal. India spends just 3.6 percent of its GDP on public health, which is less than some of its smaller neighbours, such as Nepal. In India, there are just eight physicians for every 10,000 inhabitants. Being prepared for several peaks is the best technique. Even with quick quarantine orders, a proclamation of national emergency, and a nationwide lock down, an adequate legal framework and contingency plan to handle the problems posed by COVID-19 remain critical.
1 like
Create and manage your profile
