Introduction
In the face of a 21st-century public health emergency crisis, an independent India turned to a 19th-century colonial legal framework, the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (Herein referred to as EDA). The act was enacted by the British colonial government as an emergency measure to contain the spread of the bubonic plague in Bombay in 1896.
This law grants sweeping powers to the state without offering proportionate safeguards for individual rights. With just four vaguely formed sections, this act lacks definitions and procedural clarity and fails to keep in pace with contemporary healthcare infrastructure, scientific and medical developments, and even the fundamental rights of individuals.
In the recent past, the act has been invoked on a small scale to tackle diseases such as swine flu, Malaria, Dengue, and Cholera in various states. However, it was during the COVID-19 pandemic that this act became central to India’s nationwide response.
The blanket provisions of this act have incited broad interpretations, raising concerns over arbitrariness and misuse. This blog examines the archaic act in its contemporary application and argues for a more nuanced and decentralised legislation in its stead.
Anatomy of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
The act, consisting of just four sections, was a brief but powerful legislative tool that granted powers to the executive to implement measures necessary to prevent the spread of dangerous epidemic diseases. The act has a lasting legacy in India’s public health framework, invoked repeatedly in crisis, most recently during the COVID-19 pandemic. The act was largely skeletal until the 2020 amendment, which expanded its scope and response to violence against healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The amendment introduced a comprehensive definition of “healthcare service personnel” and “act of violence” under section 1A of the act. Section 2 empowers the state government to take special measures and issue regulations in times of epidemic if existing laws are insufficient. Section 2A extends similar powers to the central government. Section 2B expressly prohibits violence against healthcare personnel or damage to their property. Section 3 provides for penal consequences under section 188 of the IPC (section 206 of BNS) for disobedience of the regulation and introduces harsher penalties for violence against the staff. The amendment also inserted sections 3A to 3E, which set out special procedural rules. And lastly, section 4 provides legal protection to those acting in good faith under the act, protecting them from litigation. S
COVID-19 and the resurrection of EDA
India was taken aback when the COVID-19 pandemic hit it in early 2020, as the governments at both the central and state levels scrambled to bring into control the rising cases by invoking emergency powers under the EDA. This law had largely remained dormant, only revived when several states, including Maharashtra and Karnataka, issued notifications under EDA for imposing lockdowns and restricting public movement. The EDA was finally amended in 2020; however, the amendment act lacks in various aspects.
Simultaneously, the Centre invoked the Disaster Management Act, 2005, authorising the National Disaster Management Authority to take charge of national coordination. This meant a volatile regime, an archaic law coupled with a disaster-focused statute acting as the primary response for managing a public health crisis. Together, these laws imposed sweeping restrictions on civil liberties throughout the country.
This led to mixed results, while some measures led to flattening of the curve, others resulted in widespread confusion and resentment. The use of criminal law, particularly Section 188 of the IPC to penalise the lockdown violators and social distancing breaches reflected a punitive approach rather than a public health-oriented one. In many places, patients were denied dignity, misinformation spread faster than official communication, and corruption scandals arose.
Most notably, neither the EDA nor the DMA provides for managing modern-day challenges like health data privacy, digital surveillance, and anti-vaccine sentiments. The response relied heavily on executive orders, which were often opaque, inconsistent, and unaccountable. In essence, India fought a data-driven pandemic with a law that predates the germ theory.
How the World did it better: Global Comparisons
India’s reliance on the EDA stood in stark contrast to the responses adopted by different countries across the globe. While India navigated the pandemic through a colonial-era statute and a legislation designed for floods and earthquakes, many nations updated and enacted public health laws that balanced executive powers with individual rights.
The United Kingdom introduced the Coronavirus Act, 2020to manage the pandemic. The statute included time-bound emergency powers, subject to parliamentary review 6 months from the enactment. The act has taken careful consideration in including diverse provisions so as to create an effective system of balance, ensuring that it cannot be exploited once in force.
In the United States, a mix of federal and state laws, including the Public Health Service Act and the Stafford Disaster Relief Act became the instruments for bringing in control the raging pandemic. The act clearly delineates powers between government agencies through a multilayered system. The acts provide a structured approach to testing, quarantine, and financial relief during the pandemic. China, which faced the initial outbreak, revised its Law on Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases and introduced protocols for outbreak classification and legal consequences for cover-ups by local authorities.
Countries like South Korea also amended their disease control act to incorporate the challenges posed by the pandemic. What these legislations reveal is the need for modern solutions to contemporary problems that take into account the digital realities and democratic values of the nations. India’s use of colonial relics highlights legal stagnation and a missed opportunity for reform during a health crisis.
Recommendations: The way forward
As India reflects on the hard lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic, one truth is undeniable: our legal framework for managing public emergencies remains outdated. The EDA enacted in colonial times cannot serve the needs of a modern, democratic, and digitally connected society. Rather than relying on fragmented measures, India urgently needs a comprehensive public health law. The following are some recommendations-
- A critical step is enacting the Draft Public Health (Prevention, Control and Management of Epidemic, Bio-Terrorism and Disaster) Bill, 2017 with some revision. The law must account for new age challenges such as vaccine hesitancy, digital misinformation, and potential surveillance overreach. It should clearly define key terms such as epidemic, dangerous disease, quarantine, etc, while establishing transparent criteria for triggering emergencies and time-bound powers that are subject to parliamentary and judicial oversight.
- It is equally important to ensure institutional and federal clarity. During the COVID-19 crisis, a lack of coordination between the centre, state, and local authorities led to inconsistent and often conflicting responses. There should be a clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities at each level of government and a strong inter-agency coordination mechanism to avoid such confusion in the future.
- The law must safeguard against arbitrary actions by ensuring compliance with Article 14, 19, and 21. Drawing on the principle laid down in K.S.PuttaswamyCoercive measures such as surveillance, isolation, and forced testing must be governed by legal safeguards.
- Special focus must be placed on vulnerable populations, including migrant workers, healthcare workers who were disproportionately affected during the pandemic. The law must provide special protections, ensure access to healthcare, and mandate inclusion in emergency relief efforts.
Conclusion
In essence, while the EDA holds historical and symbolic weight, it is no longer fit to meet the demands of today’s public health challenges. Its failure to define key terms, outline any standard public health safeguard, and complete silence on individual rights and procedural protections expose citizens to arbitrary state action without accountability or any legal guidelines. While the 2020 amendment attempts to address violence against healthcare workers, they do not introduce any meaningful accountability for the state or a compensation mechanism for those wrongfully detained or harmed due to state action. As India looks ahead, merely relying on the legacy of emergency powers without transparency and legal clarity undermines public trust and the effectiveness of healthcare in the country.
Author Name- Sunidhi Khabya B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) National Law University, Jodhpur.
Co-author- Harshita Logre third-year law students at National Law University, Jodhpur.
