DIGITAL SECURITY DURING COVID 19 AND THE STEPS TAKEN BY GOVERNMENTS TO COMBAT THE SAME

By Amrit Behera

Abstract

This article will mostly focus on how the importance of cybersecurity has increased after the COVID 19 pandemic. The paper will also discuss the major steps that can be taken to ensure a more secure online platform and it will also spread some light on the steps that are taken by the Indian government concerning cybersecurity. And at the end it the paper will also focus on how this pandemic has forced to take steps for the future.

Introduction

The pandemic has posed a huge dilemma for all businesses across the world the main problem faced by them is regarding how to keep operating even after the closures of facilities and some significant offices. Their long-reliant information technology – data centres, cloud systems, departmental servers, and the digital gadgets their now-remote employees utilised to keep connected to one another and to the company’s data – becomes even more critical. The demands placed on the internet infrastructure have increased dramatically in the last few months.

Cybercriminals see such technology as a far bigger and more valuable target. To avoid a second disaster, cybersecurity operations must be improved, focusing on the digital gadgets and networks that have become vastly more important to the businesses present in recent weeks. To put it another way, “business continuity” has become a must.

Impact of COVID-19 on cybersecurity:

As businesses adapt to a new operating paradigm in which working from home has become the “new normal,” the coronavirus pandemic has presented new obstacles. Businesses are speeding up their digital transformations, and cybersecurity has become a big worry. If cybersecurity concerns are ignored, the consequences for reputation, operations, legality, and compliance could be severe. This article looks at how COVID-19 affects cyber risk and what firms may do to mitigate it.[i]

Cyberattacks on video conferencing services:

The series of cyberattacks on video conferencing services is an example of criminals exploiting cybersecurity holes in remote working. Between February and May 2020, almost half a million people were affected by data breaches in which video conferencing service users’ personal information (such as names, passwords, and email addresses) was stolen and sold on the dark web. Some hackers used a tool called ‘OpenBullet’ to carry out this attack.

Credential stuffing tactics are also used by hackers to get access to employees’ credentials, and the stolen information is then sold to other cybersecurity criminals. One of the effects is that firms that rely significantly on videoconferencing platforms will be severely disrupted. Credential stuffing is a type of cyberattack in which hackers utilise stolen login and password combinations to gain access to other accounts. Because it is fairly usual for people to use the same username and password for many accounts, this is conceivable.[ii]

Unwanted and uninvited members have been observed gaining access to virtual meetings and obtaining personal or sensitive information, which is subsequently sold to a third party or made public to harm the company’s reputation.

Ways to reduce the chances of cyberattack:

Cyberattacks have escalated by an order of magnitude as a result of the growth in communications and the widespread shift to conduct business online. They’ve also created a slew of additional dangers. The perimeter security of organisations is at risk of being penetrated. For breaches at both physical and digital access points, they need continuous surveillance and real-time risk assessments.

Leaders in security and risk management must now protect their businesses on a vast scale, and rapidly. They must make sure that their companies’ online services and digital platforms are secure from cyberattacks.

The IT department is also under a lot of strain. IT workers in some companies must expand remote working capabilities to employees who have never worked from home before. This may include their service providers in some circumstances. Many IT departments are in the process of implementing new collaboration tools. While this is useful for keeping staff in sync (especially in agile teams), it also increases the danger of critical material being hacked because it is now stored in less secure remote locations.

However, it is impossible for IT departments to refuse this request. To conduct operations remotely, company leaders, managers, and their staffs require access to internal services and applications. Security leaders are hesitant to give access without stringent access methods since many firms have not previously made these applications and data available through the Internet or virtual private networks (VPN).[iii]

Few companies, understandably, were prepared for their employees to work remotely in large numbers. They’ve realised that secure remote-access capacity and protected access to company systems has become a significant bottleneck.

It’s tough to enforce enterprise security policies and controls on a remote workforce. The majority of controls have limited scalability and take a long time to set up. We know of several companies that have resorted to let employees to access enterprise applications using their own digital devices because there was no way to enforce security measures. Business continuity plans (BCP) and incident response plans (IRP) are insufficient or non-existent for most organisations when it comes to dealing with pandemics. Security officials have never imagined or practised a large-scale BCP operation.

Steps taken by the Government:

In the year 2020 the government of India introduced a National Cyber Security Strategy which was formulated by the National Cyber Security Coordinator’s office at the National Security Council Secretariat.

The main aim of the National Cyber Security Strategy 2020[iv] was to improve the cyber awareness and cybersecurity with the help of more strict audits. Empaneled cyber auditors will examine a company’s security features more thoroughly than is now required by law.

Table-top cyber crisis management exercises will be held on a regular basis to emphasise the idea that cyber-attacks can happen at any time. It does, however, ask for a cyber-readiness index and accompanying performance monitoring. It is advised that a distinct budget be set aside for cybersecurity, as well as coordinating the roles and duties of multiple agencies with the necessary domain knowledge.[v]

A New Era for Cybersecurity:

The changes we’ve outlined will have an impact on more than just the IT department. Talent managers will need to reassess their policies to allow for a better work-life balance if remote employees demonstrate that they can work more successfully from home. Meanwhile, personnel with important skills and remote-working requirements must be rapidly and effectively on boarded.

Large enterprises will also face new budgetary restraints. There will be new ways to use finances and invest in the correct offerings. Firms will be more conservative in their resource allocation.

Furthermore, businesses will have the ability to restructure their work processes. Prioritize new at-home work arrangements that were developed during the lockdown and have shown to be successful. Finally, as people, assets, and facilities begin to recover, governments all over the world will establish new policies and regulations based on what they learned during the epidemic.

Conclusion:

A new era of cyber security has begun as a result of the epidemic. IT security experts who step up their game and defend their organisations’ people, technology, and data against new or increased threats from more skilled cybercriminals will be critical actors in the economic recovery. And indeed it is a much needed step for the future.

---

[i] Daniel Lohrmann & Dan Lohrmann, 2020: The Year the COVID-19 Crisis Brought a Cyber Pandemic, Government Technology   (2020), https://www.govtech.com/blogs/lohrmann-on-cybersecurity/2020-the-year-the-covid-19-crisis-brought-a-cyber-pandemic.html (last visited Jul 16, 2021).

[ii] Impact of COVID-19 on Cybersecurity, https://www2.deloitte.com/ch/en/pages/risk/articles/impact-covid-cybersecurity.html (last visited Jul 16, 2021).

[iii] Deo Prashant, Raj Geetali & Santha Subramoni, How Covid-19 is Dramatically Changing Cybersecurity, Tata Consult. Serv. Ltd., https://www.tcs.com/perspectives/articles/how-covid-19-is-dramatically-changing-cybersecurity.

[iv] National Cyber Security Strategy 2020, , Drishti (2021), https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/national-cyber-security-strategy-2020 (last visited Jul 16, 2021).

[v] 3 ways governments can address cybersecurity right now | World Economic Forum, , World Economic Forum (2020), https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/3-ways-governments-can-address-cyber-threats-cyberattacks-cybersecurity-crime-post-pandemic-covid-19-world/ (last visited Jul 16, 2021).

[vi] Picture: IEEE inovation at work

Advertisement

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA

by Sonika Bisht

This article mainly focuses on the human rights and the criminal justice in India. The paper introduces the relationship between human rights and criminal justice in India. It discusses the importance of human rights in administration of criminal justice. It also discusses the multiple reasons and causes for violations of human rights of people.

INTRODUCTION

Human rights are those minimal rights, which every independent person must have as the citizen of India, irrespective of any other consideration of caste, creed, gender, religion, etc. These rights are naturally inherent. However, human rights are violated at every stage of life. Not only by our fellow individuals but are also violated by such social institutions which are meant to protect the rights of citizens. The denial of human rights and fundamental freedom is not only an individual and personal tragedy. It also creates situations of chaos in society.

[i]The criminal justice system plays a major role in effectuating human rights and thereby, protects the human rights of the citizens of a country. The criminal justice system has the power to control crime, prevent crime and punish the criminals. The pre-trial procedure involves arrest and Investigation under the Criminal

Procedure Code 1973.Criminal Justice System has composed mainly three vital organs, namely (i) Police, (ii) Judiciary and (iii) Prison. In India, the human rights have been characterised as fundamental rights and are given a special status. Fundamental Rights are important for the fact that they are considered inherent for every citizen and thus, their violation gives the citizens, the right to move to the Supreme Court and the High Courts under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution respectively.

CONCEPT OF CRIME AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Globally, criminal justice systems are principal sources of severe human rights infringement, including extrajudicial executions, torture, arbitrary detention, and unfairness. [ii]Over the past 10 years, the International Human Rights Clinic has developed considerable proficiency in documenting rights abuses in criminal justice factors and recommending for productive investigations, remedies, and reforms.

Criminal justice system of any country is the basis of establishing peace and tranquillity. It does not only include the judicial system but also the investigative machinery. Criminal justice is one of the critical areas of human rights where the legal system is tested on a continuous basis for preservation of peace and security in society on the one hand, and prevention of human dignity of both victims of crime and person accused of it, on the other. The importance of the right of access to justice for those interacting with the criminal justice system as complainants, suspects, status offenders or prisoners cannot be over-emphasised. As already stated, it is perhaps the most necessary of all human rights in the criminal justice system. The level to which human rights are valued and sheltered within the context of its criminal proceedings is an important measure of society’s civilization. By and large, the Supreme Court has, through progressive and humanistic understanding enlarged the rights of the suspect and the accused with a view to safeguarding the interest of the innocent and preventing abused or misuse of police powers. Of course, the development of law by the Supreme Court in this direction has evoked criticism from certain quarters but this criticism is not based on any empirical research.

HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN INDIA

The functionaries of the criminal justice system have the duty to safeguard the human rights of those who come in contact with them. They have to ensure that those who weaken the societal harmony by committing offences of any kind do not go without punishment. It is also their duty to make sure that the rights of such people are not dishonoured in the process of exploration and trial. This calls for a fine balancing of individual human rights and the societal interests while combating crime. It is familiar awareness that in our country the state functionaries from the very stage of investigation are culpable of various forms of human rights infringement and the abuse of human rights. Indian criminal justice system has solemnly fallen in disregard because of the perennial sluggishness and non-scientific investigation of crimes by the investigators, inordinate delay in the discarding of criminal cases by the adjudicators and poor rate of convictions. Police, which is a crucial functionary in the criminal justice system, has failed to be successful the self-belief of the common man. There is a vital need to bring changes in the police team both from within and from outside with an effective institutional grievance mechanism. This applies to action machinery as well. In some recent cases the Supreme Court dealt with the important role that public prosecutors have to perform in a criminal trial and castigated them for their failure to perform their duties under law. It is their duty to ensure that the guilty is brought to book and fair trial is ensured to all. The present prison system in India has collapsed due to their being over crowded by pre-trial and post conviction prisoners with overall appalling conditions within the prisons. All these problems have been vying for remedial actions at the hands of the policy makers and legislators but unfortunately these remain unattended substantially.

RIGHTS OF PRISONERS IN RESPECT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The word prisoner means any person who is kept under custody in jail or prison because he/she committed an illegal act by law of the land. A prisoner also known as a jailbird is anyone who against their will is dispossessed of liberty. This liberty can be disheartened by forceful restrain or detention Prisoners rights deal with the rights of the inmates while behind bars. Prisoner’s basic legal rights can’t be taken away from them. The basic rights include right to food and water, right to have an attorney to defend himself, protection from torture, violence and racial harassment. Section 1 of the Prison Security Act1992, defines the term prisoner. The word prisoner means any person for the time being in a prison as a result of any requirement imposed by a court or otherwise that he be locked up in legal custody. By my point of view if a person has conflict of the laws by committing any act which is prohibited under it, it is not fair to say that, if a person committee an act which is prohibited by law then the person is not discarded as a human being and that he can be deprived of those aspects of life which are essential to maintain his human decorum. We live in civilized society availability with the law and a system as such, it is important for every citizen having human rights. Even if the person is restricted because of the crime he committed, he is endorsed to their rights unchanged by the punishment for wrongs, simply because if a person is under trial, his rights cannot be discarded as a whole. It is a settled system that prisoners go to prison to be confined behind bars as the punishment of their crime and not to get subjected to physical and mental abuse.

Other than the basic human needs, which have now been included in the area of right to life under the Indian Constitution due to the judgements of the Supreme Court, right to life also allows a person to avail the guarantee of protection in cases of criminal justice administration. “The prisoners are no longer considered as an object or a slave of the nation, who the law would leave at the prison door and who would be convicted to ‘civil death’.”  It is progressively been established that a person does not disqualify to be a person just because he committed a crime and put behind the bars.

In India various legislations dealing with rights of prisoners have been enacted. The Supreme Court of India, through interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, has developed human rights jurisprudence for the protection of prisoners’ rights for the maintenance of human dignity. Deprivation of life and liberty is justifiable according to procedure established by law but the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable.

[iii]In Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India the Apex Court laid down that the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This was further endorsed in Francis Coralie Mullin Vs the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Others, when the court held that Article judiciary 21 requires that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law and this procedure must be reasonable, fair and just and not arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. The Indian judiciary has been very active and attentive in protecting the human rights of the prisoners.

In Zahid Hussein and Others Vs State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court observed that the conduct of the petitioners while in jail is an important factor to be considered as to whether they have lost their potentiality in committing crime due to long period of detention or not.

In R.D. Upadhyay Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, the Supreme Court considered the issue of development of children who are in jail with their mothers, either as under testing prisoners or convicts. The Court observed that the jail environment was certainly not pleasant for development of the children. A study was ordered to be conducted by the National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Sciences where many suggestions were made for proper care of children of women prisoners. It was further recommended that arrest of women suspects be made only by lady police. Such arrests should be sparingly made as it affects innocent children who are taken into custody with their mothers.

[iv]Apart from the Constitutional rights there are also statutory rights available to the prisoners.

CONCLUSION

In this article, it is concluded that criminal law has always been a great source for the enlargement of human rights. These human rights and there place in the criminal justice system and constitutional jurisprudence are explored alongside the judicial craft that led to their expansion. The criminal justice system has the power to control crime, prevent crime and punish the criminals. The level to which human rights are valued and sheltered within the context of its criminal proceedings is an important measure of society’s civilization. Here, human rights perspective of criminal justice in India is also being concluded. And also we have discussed the prisoner’s rights in respect of human rights.

---

[i] P.N Bhagwati, Human Rights in the Criminal Justice system, JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43950897.

[ii] Criminal Justice & Human Rights, Human rights@Harvard Law, https://hrp.law.harvard.edu/areas-of-focus/previous-areas-of-focus/criminal-justice/.

[iii] Anuj Kumar, Human rights of prisoners, legal desire (June, 10. 2016), https://legaldesire.com/human-rights-of-prisoners/.

[iv] Vivek Narayan Sharma, Prisoners’ rights in India, Toi Opinion (Oct, 20. 2018. 8:58 PM), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/lawtics/prisoners-rights-in-india/.

[v] Picture: KnowLaw

INTERNATIONAL LAW ON CONTROLLING TO SPREAD INFECTIOUS DISEASE

by Vartika Johri

ABSTRACT

Infectious diseases are usually considered from the view point of the human population affected, the diseases that are caused and the biology of the micro-organisms. Microbiologists and epidemiologists seldom consider the political dimensions of their activities. International law has made several attempts to deal with the spread of microbial diseases. International law also made sure that spread of such infectious disease to not cause any disturbance in international trade law and International environmental law. As the current scenario where globalisation is increasing a fast pace the concern with the health of population have become increasingly aware, international law and international health regulations are continuously attempting to control spread of infections.

INTRODUCTION

With recent outbreak of COVID- 19, the world has realised that epidemic diseases do not respect national boundaries, there is a requirement of national infectious disease laws and legislations. Owing to globalisation where every country is connected in such a way that the spread of such infectious disease will be very tricky to handle. International cooperation among national governments and between governments and international non-government agencies are facilitated by a basic set of international public health and infectious disease laws. The body of international infectious disease law is composed of different types of agreement among nations, including various treaties, accords, conventions and agreements, nations contributed to this law by participating in international organisations such as United Nations, World Trade Organisation or World Bank. Over the years the world has experienced a fast-spreading awareness among nations to improve these laws and to create awareness among other nations the importance of having efficient provisions to combat the spread of such infectious diseases, various nations sponsor or aid the mission of various NGOs agreeing to let their members assess and respond to infectious disease outbreaks within their national borders.

Increasing web of globalisation has caused nations to realise the importance of avoiding the spread of an epidemic disease but if taken a look at history the world was aware about the importance to these laws since the outbreak of European cholera epidemics of 1830 and 1847 which catalysed the evolution of the earliest multilateral governance of communicable diseases, this rooted the link between international law and communicable diseases in the mid-nineteenth century, more precisely in 1851 when France convened the first International Sanitary Conference with the participation of 11 European countries. In most of these conferences no legislative proposal was approved and even no diplomatic efforts were made in this regard. More than 150 years of subsequent multilateral linkage of law and communicable diseases, contemporary global health governance continues to evolve debate in public health discourses and still the legacy of the nineteenth-century public health diplomacy inspires the reach and grasp of contemporary international law to regulate globalisation of emerging and re-emerging communicable diseases within the mandate of WHO and other institutions. Historically speaking international law played a key role in communicable disease surveillance and throughout the nineteenth century international law played a dominant role in harmonising the inconsistent national quarantine regulations of European nation state. Within America in 1905 the Inter-American Sanitary Convention imposed notification duties for cases of cholera, plague and yellow fever. In 1924, the Pan-American Sanitary code provided for bi-weekly notification of ten specific diseases and any other diseases that the Pan-American Sanitary Bureau added also for immediate notification of other dangerous contagion liable to spread through international commerce.

In modern time prior to 1990s the role of international law in efforts by states to control and prevent infectious diseases has not been frequently analysed by international lawyers or international relation scholars.

GLOBALIZATION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Increased cross-border microbial traffic through globalisation revealed weaknesses in domestic public health systems such as inadequate surveillance capabilities. International law relates to the horizontal and vertical challenges for infectious disease policy created by globalisation.

Vertical Challenges represent then problems that countries face inside their territories from the national to the local level, responses to vertical challenge aim to reform public health practices and policies within a state but not between states.

Horizontal challenges constitute problems that arise between state from global microbial traffic. States adopted policies to manage infectious disease threats without international cooperation and because of increased volume and speed on international trade and travel moved states from national to international governance, 3 horizontal international legal regimes relating to infectious diseases appeared – the classical, organisational and trade regimes.

1. Classical regime – International sanitary convention adopted from the late 19^th century until World War II and the WHO’s IHR represented the classical regime.
2. The organizational – international health organisation created to deal with infectious diseases and other public problems. WHO served as the leading representative of this governance framework. States created international health organisations to facilitate horizontal cooperation in public health.
3. The trade regime – this regime created in 1851-1951 represented by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT,1947), this regime liberalised trade but recognised that states may restrict trade to protect health but in conformity to GATT rules.

In last 50 years have witnessed changes in international law relating to governance challenges created by globalisation for infectious diseases with foreign policy and national security concerns of the great powers might affect role of international law in global infectious disease policy.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS

In 1951, WHO adopted the International Sanitary Regulations under Article 6, which is the product of the nineteenth-century international sanitary conferences which was re-named as the International Health Regulations [IHR] in 1969 and later on there were slight modification in 1973 and 1981. The IHR consists of legally binding set of regulations which were adopted under the auspices of WHO as an international organisation and they are one of the earliest multilateral regulatory mechanisms strictly focused on global surveillance for communicable diseases, they provide a set of regulations for the control and sharing of epidemiological information on dangerous communicable diseases. Fundamental principle on which IHR operates is “Maximum security against the international spread of diseases with a minimum interference with world traffic”. Over the years these provisions have proved to be ineffective in controlling the spread as in 1994 a plague outbreak in India which led to US $1.7 billion losses in trade, tourism, travel and 1997, the European Community imposed a ban on importation of fresh fish from East Africa following the outbreak of cholera in certain countries, IHR’s relative inexperience in creating and enforcing legal regimes became the sole reason spread of such diseases and losses incurred because of the spread, owing to these facts in 1995 World Health Assembly adopted resolution WHA48.7(Global health security: economic alert and response) which requested that IHR should be revised to take more effective account of the threat posed by the international spread of new-emerging diseases. The revision was focused on 5 key areas

1. Global health security
2. Public health emergencies of international concerns
3. Routine preventive measures
4. National IHR focal points
5. Synergy between IHR and other related international regimes.

The duty and principle of state co-operation under general international law and the specific obligation of reporting epidemic outbreaks share an obvious fundamental similarity. Although individual states are responsible for preserving public health in their territories their efforts may be rendered meaningless without international co-operation. WHO has aptly exclaimed that “health is a shared responsibility, involving equitable access to essential care and collective defence against transnational threats”. The United Nation Charter Article 1(3), 2, 55, 56 as well as the UBGA’s 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among states which clearly states in order to avoid and achieve maximum health standards as promised by WHO co-operation of all the States is a must, over years this has also became a customary law which is practiced and contributed in its development by all the nations. Article 2(1) of ICESR also requires state to co-operate for fulfilling the rights enshrined in the instrument, however this duty mentioned is specifies and narrowed in the field of public health. 

INTERNATIONAL LAW RESPONSE TO COVID 19

Ever since 1851, when the first International Sanitary Conference attempted to harmonize quarantine procedures among European States, countries have repeatedly united around the need to prevent the spread of disease. The latest iteration of the global rules on pandemic, the 2005 International Health Regulations which has requirements for states to report outbreaks and manage diseases within their borders and cooperate to prevent spread. The rules are binding on all 196 WHO members as they aim to ‘prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease’

During COVID-19 the IHR have too often proved ineffective in shaping the response of states and even the WHO itself acted way too casual to the pandemic, there was inexplainable delay in reporting a public health emergency even after learning about the outbreak, and not even WHO many member states broke the recommendations of imposing strict travel bans, stay-at-home orders and other repressive measures, where state co-operation being the motive stated in the various conferences yet competition ruled the day.

IHR is binding on the member countries but lacks any punitive measures in case of violation of rules and duties and no enforcement mechanism resulted in drastic failure in handling a deadly pandemic which resulted in lockdown of the economy.

INDIA’s FIGHT AGAINST EPIDEMIC

The colonial-era Epidemic diseases Act [EDA] of 1897 is India’s solitary law that has been historically used as a framework for containing the spread of various disease including cholera and malaria. This Act came into force amidst the outbreak of the bubonic plague in Bombay, this law proved to be inadequate and the plague later spread itself to Bangalore and also other parts of the country. Over the years no standard or model rules and regulations have been prescribed as a corollary to the law and this law merely outlines a set of rudimentary elements including travel restrictions, examinations and quarantine of person suspected of being infected. There are major defects in the law as it has proved next to be useless in modern times but this an insufficiency on part of the central government of the country that even in middle of such pandemic there are no amendments in the act, which should be carefully examined and revised as being the need of the hour. Internationally the binding ruled of IHR has been strictly followed by the country but for an all-round protection the internal laws of the country are way too ancient to be effective.

CONCLUSION

In the words of Paton “From institutional point of view international Law is weak as it has no legislative support though there is international court of justice but the functions or takes cases on the basis of mutual consents of the states and it has no power to get the decisions implemented” there are various laws made, set up and rectified by the States, these are binding on member nations but still there are violation and still international law has always been silent on the punitive measures applicable in case of violations of these rules. If there had been a watch dog to make sure that the rules are being implemented it would have been easy to handle the fast spread of various epidemics and pandemics. In future the international laws need to be backed up with more strict laws because in this highly dynamic era emergence of new issues is no element of surprise, it should also be noted that simple formation of a law does no good but making sure it is implemented does.

REFERENCES:

1. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230524248_13
2. https://www.encyclopedia.com/media/educational-magazines/legislation-international-law-and-infectious-diseases
3. https://jech.bmj.com/content/55/6/448.2
4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56586/
5. https://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/80(12)946.pdf?ua=1#:~:text=The%20IHR%20are%20a%20set,traffic”(7).
6. Picture: Bored Panda

LEGAL RIGHTS DURING QUARANTINE

by Garima Mehta

Abstract

The following article deals with Legal Rights during quarantine and coronavirus. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus. Most people infected with the COVID-19 virus will experience mild to moderate respiratory illness and recover without requiring special treatment. Older people, and those with underlying medical problems like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, and cancer are more likely to develop serious illness. Quarantine separates and restricts the movement of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick. These people may have been exposed to a disease and do not know it, or they may have the disease but do not show symptoms.

Quarantine[i]

Quarantine is a specific period of time in which a person or animal that has a disease, or may have one, must stay or be kept away from others in order to prevent the spread of the disease.

Quarantine is considered as the oldest mechanism to reduce the rapid spread of bacterial infections and viral onslaughts. It has been legally sanctioned by all jurisdictions in the world for the maintenance of public health and to control the transmission of diseases.

In present scenario, Quarantine is used to keep someone who might have been exposed to COVID-19 away from others. Quarantine helps prevent spread of disease that can occur before a person knows they are sick or if they are infected with the virus without feeling symptoms. People in quarantine should stay home, separate themselves from others, monitor their health, and follow directions from their state or local health department.

The current COVID-19 crisis, with its closure of shops, academic institutions and postponement of public examinations, has put the people in a de facto quarantine.

Coronavirus and COVID-19[ii]

COVID-19 is a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 that can trigger what doctors call a respiratory tract infection. It can affect your upper respiratory tract (sinuses, nose, and throat) or lower respiratory tract (windpipe and lungs). It spreads mainly through person-to-person contact. Infections range from mild to deadly.

The virus can lead to pneumonia, respiratory failure, heart problems, liver problems, septic shock, and death. Many COVID-19 complications may be caused by a condition known as cytokine release syndrome or a cytokine storm. This is when an infection triggers your immune system to flood your bloodstream with inflammatory proteins called cytokines. They can kill tissue and damage your organs.

A contact in the context of COVID-19[iii]

A contact is defined as a healthy person that has been in such association with an infected person or a contaminated environment as to have exposed and is therefore at a higher risk of developing disease.

A person living in the same household as a COVID-19 case:

•A person having had direct physical contact with a COVID-19 case or his/her infectious secretions without recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) or with a possible breach of PPE.

•A person who was in a closed environment or had face to face contact with a COVID-19 case at a distance of within 1 metre including air travel.

The epidemiological link may have occurred within a 14‐day period before the onset of illness in the case under consideration.

Law in India in Relation with Quarantine[iv]

The legal framework in relation to tackling the current Pandemic situation and public health disaster arising out in India interpreted from major legislations-

• The Constitution of India
• The Epidemic Act 1897
• The Disaster Management Act, 2005
• The National Health Bill, 2009
• Indian Aircraft (Public Health) Rules, 1954
• Port Health Rules, 1955

The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, a law of colonial vintage, empowers the state to take special measures, including inspection of passengers, segregation of people and other special steps for the better prevention of the spread of dangerous diseases. It was amended in 1956 to confer powers upon the Central government to prescribe regulations or impose restrictions in the whole or any parts of India to control and prevent the outbreak of hazardous diseases. Quarantine is not an alien concept or strange action and it has been invoked several times during the bizarre situations caused by the cholera, smallpox, plague and other diseases in India.

Detection of a travel related/unrelated suspect case of novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID19) will be followed by rapid isolation of such cases in designated health facilities and line listing of all contacts of such cases. Home quarantine is applicable to all such contacts of a suspect or confirmed case of COVID-19.

This intervention will be limited to the initial phase of India reporting only:

• travel related cases
• focal clusters arising from a travel related/unrelated case where cluster containment strategy is adopted.
• Persons coming from COVID-19 affected areas where local and community transmission is evident.

In our country, disobedience to quarantine rule is punishable under Section 271 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. Failure to take requisite precautions despite being aware of the possibility of the spread of such infection or disease is punishable under Sections 269 and 270 of the IPC. Under Section 269, whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description up to six months or fine or with both fine and imprisonment.

Under Section 270, Whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Malignancy is characterized in diseases that are highly virulent, infectious and life-threatening. Disobeying the norms prescribed for social distancing, coughing or sneezing without covering the nose and mouth, not wearing masks in public, disregarding norms for social isolation, loitering on the streets in groups, socializing in disregard of the prescribed regulations, etc. are all punishable offences under Section 270. 

We also have the Disaster Management Act, 2005 that provides for effective management of man-made and natural disasters which may result in substantial loss of life or human suffering. Biological disasters that may be caused by epidemics are covered under National Disaster Management Guidelines, 2008 for the management of biological disasters drafted by National Disaster Management Authority, Government of India. We also have a National Disaster management plan, 2019 to strengthen disaster resilient development and enhance our capacity to recover from them.

A Public Health (Prevention, Control and Management of Epidemics, Bio-terrorism and Disasters) Bill was drafted by the Ministry of Health and Family welfare in 2017 to empower local government bodies for taking swift action during emergency situations.

The coronavirus period will be counted as an emergency period. World Health Organization has declared novel coronavirus (COVID-19) “Pandemic”SARS-CoV-2, commonly known as COVID-19 is an airborne disease and has rapid contagious characteristics. The lockdown method seems to be the most adopted approach by countries across the globe in lieu of curbing the increase of COVID-19. The outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19) first reported in December 2019 at Wuhan, China has now created a vulnerability in the entire World.

The novel corona virus (COVID-19) embarked on the Indian government to hone out public health strategy provided under national laws and policies. The incidence and prevalence ofCOVID-19 compelled the government to clamp the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, on March 11, 2020, by social distancing and the voluntary public curfew norm in the country.

Conclusion

The critical appraisal of Indian public health legislation reveals that the government has not discharged its constitutional obligation for the enactment of public health and emergency preparedness laws in epidemic-pandemicCOVID-19 like situations. The COVID-19 being a crisis, also served an opportunity to redress the long-standing reform of public health laws, but it passed as a great miss. The promulgation of the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, is seen to be aligned with 123 years old colonial legislation more as a criminal statute than that civilian approach to health care and equity.

---

Quarantine (June 25, 2021, 10:00AM)

[i]https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus_quarantine

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic (June 25, 2021, 11:00 AM)

[ii]https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Contact tracing (June 25, 2021, 12:00 PM)

[iii]https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-contact-tracing

Coronavirus: The legal framework behind lockdown, curfew, and quarantine (June 25, 2021, 1:00 PM)

[iv]https://www.barandbench.com/columns/coronavirus-the-legal-framework-behind-lockdown-curfew-and-quarantine

Picture: MarTech