The Origin and Shortcomings of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897

Must Read

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

Follow us

The current COVID- 19 situation is putting healthcare systems all over the world to test as the number of cases reported is increasing day by day.

In understanding the various measures taken by the government in containing the pandemic, it becomes essential to analyze the legal framework and the statutory law relating to appropriate measures to be taken in a health emergency. Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced a complete lockdown of India for 21 days starting 25 March 2020 as a measure to contain the spread of the global pandemic.

Before this announcement, different state governments including DelhiMaharashtra, and Telangana had already announced state-wide regulations for the same reason. The decisions taken the state governments is by invoking the British-era legislation known as The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

The enactment of The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897

The legislation owes its origin to the 1896 Bubonic plague epidemic of Bombay which began in September that year and gradually spread to other parts of the subcontinent and was a well- known event in the timeline of colonial India.

During this period, the society responded with panic and the extreme measures taken by the administration proved useless to control the situation. Queen Victoria addressed both the houses of the Parliament and stated that her government had taken the most stringent measures to deal with the situation. A week after Queen Victoria’s address, the Epidemic Diseases Bill was introduced in the Council of the Governor-General in India for the prevention of the spread of dangerous epidemic diseases.

The member who introduced it, John Woodburn, recognised that the powers mentioned in the Bill were extraordinary but necessary. He believed that people must “trust the discretion of the executive in the grave and critical circumstances.”

The vague wording of the legislation was criticised, but the government maintained that it was meant for the benefit of the local bodies who could apply the Act in the manner suited to their conditions. Thus there was an undertone of authoritarianism to the Act as the government expected the people to trust the administration and hence give it full discretion in case of an epidemic situation.

The Act also inheres the colonial assumption of the inferiority of the general public. The Act is deficient for three key reasons.

First, the law fails to define “dangerous”, “infectious”, or “contagious diseases”, let alone an “epidemic”. There is no elaboration in the Act on the extant rules and procedures for arriving at a benchmark to determine that a particular disease needs to be declared as an epidemic.

The second limitation is that the law contains no provisions on the sequestering and the sequencing required for dissemination of drugs/vaccines, and the quarantine measures and other preventive steps that need to be taken.

Third, there is no underlying delineation of the fundamental principles of human rights that need to be observed during the implementation of emergency measures in an epidemic. The Act emphasises only the powers of the central and state governments during the epidemic, but it does not describe the government’s duties in preventing and controlling the epidemic, nor does it explicitly state the rights of the citizens during the event of a significant disease outbreak.

The fact that we are controlling a 2020 pandemic using a law that was passed 123 years ago is alarming. The circumstances in which the country is both socially and economically is vastly different than what it was during the colonial period. We are now an informed democracy and vesting of too much power and discretion in the hands of the bureaucracy is dangerous in the current situation. The citizenry of the country is better informed due to various mediums such as the internet and social media. Once the pandemic situation comes under control, the law must be repealed and replaced by a more modern and comprehensive piece of legislation.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -