India’s 22nd Law Commission has proposed decentralization of powers between central and state governments during future pandemics like COVID-19.
A committee headed by President Ritu Raj Awasthi initiated a review of the existing legal framework for epidemic diseases when the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoH and FW).
MoH and FW not only provided the said bill to the commission but also asked the commission and suggestions on it, the report said.
In addition to the proposed changes to the law, the commission lists in its 94-page report measures to create a more comprehensive law to prepare for emergency situations in a highly globalized and interconnected world, where future epidemics are a real possibility.
Lessons from COVID-19
According to the report, the COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed an unprecedented challenge on India’s healthcare infrastructure. Although the central government reacted quickly to the developing situation, some restrictions appeared in the health laws.
The survey restriction was used under the Disaster Management Act 2005, while parliament amended the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897 to meet the challenges, especially for health workers.
The Commission found that current legislation u201c does not comprehensively address the issue of deterrence.
Considering today’s challenges, the Commission believes that control, surveillance and prevention of epidemic diseases cannot be limited to a century-old law.
Decentralization of power
According to the Commission, the Epidemic Law gives extensive powers to central and state institutions. However, due to the lack of an appropriate enforcement mechanism in line with the nature and severity of the epidemic disease, implementation of prevention and control measures becomes difficult, resulting in uncoordinated efforts to combat epidemic diseases.
Consequently, the report recommends appropriate decentralization and limitation of powers between central, state and local authorities in the new law to manage future crises.
The Commission emphasized that since public health and sanitation are states under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, states are responsible for managing public health emergencies and taking preventive measures.
To avoid conflicts between the center and the state and for proper decentralization of executive power, a special standard operating procedure (SOP) is needed to respond to an epidemic situation, added.
The SOP describes the role of states u201coutbreaku201d before it becomes an epidemic. It was proposed that the state government should empower local governments when it is discovered that an area is at imminent risk of an epidemic.
However, if a significant part of the country is at risk of an epidemic, the state agency should have the authority to make regulations to control the epidemic based on the guidelines and directions given in the epidemic plan.
Epidemic Plan
The Law Commission opined that the central government should prepare u201epidemic plan201d to deal with any epidemic or epidemic or pandemic in the whole country.
Such a plan should be prepared in collaboration with all central ministries like MoH and FW and AYUSH, state ministries and health ministries, major public and private health institutions, technical and expert bodies and other stakeholders in the medical field.
The epidemic plan must include a broad framework for imposing restrictions and movement restrictions on people and vehicles.
Other recommendations
One of the most important proposals of the government is to include definitions of various terminologies used during the recent pandemic in the new law.
Here are some commission terms.
The term “epidemic” must be clearly defined in the amended law or the new law on epidemic diseases.
In order to take appropriate measures to contain and control epidemic diseases and transfer powers between the Center and the states, it is necessary to define the disease levels according to whether they are epidemics, epidemics or pandemics.
The difference between quarantine isolationu should be clarified.
clinical facility as mentioned in the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act 2010 which provides minimum requirements before being recognized as suitable for the treatment of epidemic diseases.
Physical distance must be defined in the parent law.
Weakened Penalties
The Commission is looking for more and more severe penalties under the Epidemic Law to prevent irresponsible behavior of people during an epidemic.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, offenders were cited under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment or a fine of up to ₹ 20,000,000 or both.
Under the significant new provision in the proposed Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Section 221), the punishment has been increased to imprisonment which may extend to one year or to a fine which may extend to 20 billion USD 95,000 or to both. . .
According to the Commission, however, such punishment should be given legal force within the framework of the Epidemic Law itself. The crime should be classified into two groups: a negligent violation, which carries a lighter penalty, and an intentional violation, which carries a more severe penalty.
In addition, the Commission considers it appropriate to increase penalties for subsequent or repeated violations, added.
Name: Anam Mukherjee, BALLB, Techno India University, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments