AMENDMENT TO EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT & ITS LEGAL INFERENCES
Dr. Nagarathna. A.
Associate Professor Law,
National Law School of India University, Bengaluru
While the whole world is striving towards controlling the spread of Covid-19 virus, India had to additionally battle other challenges associated with the epidemic. Violent attacks on healthcare workers, fake news, and non-cooperation of suspects of infection are some of such challenges. Government of India, realising the ineffectiveness of the existing laws in this regard has resorted to legal changes. The Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 which came into effect from 22nd April 2020 amends most of the provisions of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.
The amended law now extends to whole of India and intends to protect the healthcare service providers from attacks or other forms of violence. A healthcare service personnel according to the Act includes every such person who while carrying on his duties in relation to the epidemic related responsibilities, comes in direct contact with affected patients and hence at the risk of being impacted by such disease. It includes any public and clinical healthcare provider such as a doctor, nurse, paramedical worker, community health worker and any other person empowered under the Act to take measures to prevent the outbreak of the disease or spread of such disease.
The ordinance criminalises ‘acts of violence’ against healthcare service personnel under section 3(2)(i). An “act of violence” includes causing harassment impacting the living or working conditions of such personnel and preventing them from discharging their duties; causing any harm, injury, hurt, intimidation or danger to the life of such personnel; obstructing or causing any hindrance to such personnel in discharging their duties and causing loss or damage to any property or documents in the custody of or in relation to such personnel.” If such acts of violence leads to ‘grievous hurt’ to such personnel, it will be punishable under Section 3(3). Causing damage or loss to any property, such as, a clinical establishment, any facility identified for quarantine or isolation of patients, a mobile medical unit and any other property in which a healthcare service personnel has direct interest, during the epidemic is criminalised too, under Section 3(2). An abettor of these two offences is also be punishable.
According to Section 3E, a person found guilty of the above offences shall also be liable to pay compensation of an amount fixed by the Court. In case such offence leads to any damage to property or loss, the amount of compensation shall be twice the cost of such property or loss suffered.
The ordinance has bought in few procedural legal changes such as the following:
- Criminal investigation: The above mentioned offences are made ‘cognizable’ in nature thereby empowering police officers not below the rank of inspectors with the power of investigation, which must be completed within 30 days from the date of registering FIR.
- Speedy Trail: The inquiry and trial of these offences must be held as expeditiously as possible, preferably on day to day basis, from the stage of examination of witnesses. It should not exceed a period of one year, unless the judge records reasons for such delay. Every further extension of the time can only be made for a period of not more than 6 months at a time.
- Compoundable offence: Section 3B provides for compounding of the offence of ‘act of violence’ if it is compounded by the victim with permission of the court. This would meant that the accused and the complainant can settle the matter amicably if they do not want to pursue it further before the lawful authorities.
- Presumption based liability: Generally while providing the offence on the part of an accused, the burden to prove such case is imposed on the complainant or the prosecution. Whoever this enactment shifts the burden to an extent on the accused. The Act states that wile prosecuting for an offence of acts of violence leading to ‘grievous hurt’ punishable under Section 3(3), the court under Section 3C can presume that the accused has committed the offence unless the contrary is proved. Court under Section 3D can also presume the presence of accused’s culpable mental state. An accused to rebut this presumption, must prove in his defence absence of such mental state. Further the provision requires the poof of such fact beyond ‘reasonable doubt’.
- Recovery of compensation: in order to ensure that the accused does not avoid payment of compensation amount, the law provides for a legal process for recovering such compensation amount. According to the amended law, in case a convict fails to pay the compensation amount, it can be recovered as an arrear of land revenue.
This legal endeavour of the Government to protect our “frontline soldiers in battling the spread of Covid-19” through the ordinance is definitely commendable and was the need of the time. However its success depends on its effective implementation which can be assessed only in the due course of time.