Examination of Quarantine laws during Covid-19

The author of this blog is Mr. Samarth Garg, 1^st Year B.A.L.LB (HONS) student at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai.

COVID-19 is a great equalizer – it does not discriminate according to race, gender, culture, class, or nationality. India has subjected people to legally enforceable quarantine or self-isolation.Various sections of the Indian Penal Code were enforced which come under Chapter XIV– ‘Of Offences Affecting the Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency, and Morals’. For smooth lockdown.

1.Section 188 of IPC

“Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such, order he is directed to abstain from a certain act, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; And if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both”. It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces or is likely to produce, harm. As in the case of Coronavirus if a person suffering from the disease disobeys the law and tends to create a threat to life others as the disease transmits from human bodies. Thus, imposing section 188 of the IPC was a necessary step.

2.Section 269 of IPC

“Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and he knows or has reason to believe, 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 six months, or with fine, or with both”. Acting negligently can lead to spreading to disease like in case of singer Kanika Kapoor, she was booked under section 269 because she disobeyed the laws firstly under section 188 of the IPC and as she attended the events in Lucknow it was sheer negligence.

3.Section 270 of IPC

 “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.” It is an aggravated version of the previous section here that malignantly indicates a deliberate intention on the part of the accused. Anyone loitering or roaming around the streets knowing that such provisions are enforceable will be booked immediately by the state police.

4.Section 271 of IPC

“Disobedience to quarantine rule. —Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made and promulgated by the Government  for putting any vessel into a state of quarantine, or for regulating the intercourse of vessels in a state of quarantine with the shore or with other vessels, or for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both”.

Police personnel charge at a biker for flouting lockdown guidelines

 “Quarantine” means the restriction of activities and/or separation of suspect persons from others who are not ill in such a manner as to prevent the possible spread of infection or contamination. Thus, if anybody tries to overlook the lockdown or try to outsmart the law will be sternly punished for their fallacious act.

Even after imposing these substantial sections of the Law the news is crammed with the occurrence of violations of advisories furnished by the government to impede the spread of the virus. In the rise of such lawlessness, the state governments are falling back on section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It deals with the offence of attempt to murder.

This article divides the offenders into two categories – those voluntarily trying to spread the disease and those who are not disclosing their travel history.

A health worker speaking during a coronavirus information camp at an India-Nepal border crossing on Monday.   | Photo Credit: AFP

Case-1 Spreading disease voluntarily

It has been seen that patients in the hospitals suffering from coronavirus are spitting on the corona warriors to spread the virus in states like Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and among other states. Whoever spotted spitting is booked.

For conviction under section 307 IPC, all ingredients of murder save and except the death of the victim are to be found.  The prosecution must prove that there was a motive to commit murder and some unconcealable act towards its commission. As coronavirus is highly contagious it transmits, so spitting can be considered as an overt act.

Mens rea is an essential component in attempt to murder. It becomes necessary to prove that the act was done with an intention to cause death or bodily injury in such a way that:

a) accused knows it is going to cause death

b) sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death

 c)the act is so imminently dangerous to cause death

 To book under section 300 the accused should have prior knowledge of the physical condition of the victim which will be absent in case of interplay between strangers.

Under Section 300 it is important to prove-

a) that the act should be intentional and not accidental

 b) that the act was sufficient, in the customary course of nature, to cause death.

It is understandable that spitting on the corona warriors is intentional. The second part requires a deeper investigation as to whether spitting is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In general, spitting is not an act that could cause death, it merely means that death will be the most probable result.

As it is known coronavirus transmits through respiratory droplets there is a high possibility that spitting could lead to spreading of the virus and affect. People infected with Covid-19 experience mild to moderate symptoms and recuperate without any specialized treatment by self-isolating for 14 days. If an affected person is a patient of diabetes, blood pressure, cancer, or any cardiovascular disease there is a high probability the victims will succumb to the virus. The mortality rate in India is around 3.3%, it means most infected heal. Therefore, it cannot be said that death is the most probable outcome of the guilty act of spitting. And seeing the preceding discussions it is evident that the act will certainly not lead to the death of the victim.

However, the accused should be brought under section 270 rather section 307 because of s.270 “malignant act likely to spread infection of disease danger­ous to life". To book under s.270 it is important that Actus Reus must be shown as likely to spread an infectious disease that is pernicious to life.

Case-2 Not disclosing travel history

In states like Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Haryana have booked people under section 307 for not disclosing their travel history. As previously discussed, the accused to be booked under section 307 needs to do any act which is apparent and committed with the knowledge and intention to cause murder. The act of concealing the travel history in no sense poses to be an overt act. Hiding the travel history in no ordinary sense is sufficient to cause bodily injury or death. Accusing under section 307 looks more of a misuse of law. The offender shall rather be accused under section 188 for not obeying the law promulgated by a public servant. The government has been very vocal about disclosure of travel history and remaining in isolation to contain the spread. Thus, it would be appropriate to convict under section 188 for disobeying the law.

Conclusion

Convictions of those who are voluntarily trying to spread the virus and those hiding their travel histories under s.307 will fail at the initial stage. The application of the non-bailable offence of s.307 with stricter punishment when compared to other sections 188, 269, 270 and 271 comes out to be a case misuse of law and ghosting people in the name of law. The other relevant section seems appropriate to punish an offender in such circumstances. The authority may have thought imposing harsher penance will reduce the count of offenders. However, such harsh measures, especially in the case of non-disclosure of travel history, will possibly lead to increased fear among possible patients and eventually hamper them from reporting the symptoms.

.

---