Decoded: How the new epidemic Act aims to protect healthcare workers

Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, the primary law to regulate healthcare emergencies was the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. This colonial-era law was enacted to fight the bubonic plague in erstwhile Bombay. It comprised only four sections spread over just three pages.

Now, faced with an unprecedented health emergency, the Centre revisited this Act and added provisions that would help in fighting deadly diseases and also protect healthcare workers from abuse.

The Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Bill, 2020, has received presidential assent, thereby becoming law. The provisions of the Bill had already been in force, in the form of an Ordinance. 

What changes have been brought about by the amendment?

The Act seeks to protect healthcare service personnel, who are helping in combating epidemic diseases. During the course of the pandemic, frontline workers have often been stigmatised owing to the contagious nature of Covid-19. Many times, their person, property and healthcare facilities were also subject to attacks.

The government, in its statement of objects and reasons, said that this deeply hurts the morale of such personnel and obstructs them from performing their duties. It added that existing provisions to deal with miscreants were not stringent enough and added new ones.

The Act also widens the central government’s powers to prevent the spread of a disease.

What are the special provisions added to protect healthcare personnel?

First and foremost, any act of violence against healthcare personnel has been made punishable, with imprisonment for acts causing grievous harm ranging between six months and seven years, and a fine that could be anywhere between Rs 100,000 and Rs 500,000. These violent acts are also classified as cognisable and non-bailable offences.

Moreover, such personnel will also be entitled to compensation from the person convicted for such an offence.

A healthcare service personnel is defined as anyone who comes in direct contact with affected patients while discharging duties in relation to epidemic-related responsibilities.

According to the Act, it could be a nurse, doctor, community health worker or any person declared as such by the state government.

Acts of violence against property, which includes a clinical establishment, quarantine facility, mobile medical unit, or any other property where a healthcare practitioner may have direct interest in relation to the epidemic, are also punishable under this Act.

A case filed under these provisions shall be investigated in not more than 30 days from the date of registering the (FIR). And the trial must be concluded within one year, unless the magistrate records reasons in writing. In cases of causing grievous harm, the burden of proof shall lie on the accused.

How does the Act widen the Centre’s powers?

Under the Constitution, public health falls under the ambit of the state. This Act, however, confers concurrent powers upon the central government as those of the state government to prevent the spread of an epidemic. Also, the central government now has powers to inspect any bus, train, aircraft, goods vehicle, and ship leaving or arriving at any port, land port, or aerodrome during an outbreak. If the Centre wants, it can also detain any person intending to travel by these means.

What are some proposed additions to the Act, as well as criticisms?

During the parliamentary debate, opposition parties suggested that the government define the term epidemic or pandemic in order to bring about more clarity to when this Act would apply. 

Speaking during the debate in the Rajya Sabha, Trinamool Congress MP Derek O’Brien termed the Act an attempt to encroach on state powers and said that West Bengal already has its own law, the Medicare Service Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property Act, 2009, to deal with attacks on medical practitioners.

Provisions of the Act were used to arrest opposition leaders gathered to protest against the Hathras case, further raising questions about the discretion lying in the hands of the Centre to detain persons in order to prevent the spread of a disease.