September 21, 2020
Kalyan Banerjee speaks on The Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Bill, 2020
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Sir, currently, under section 2 of the original Act, the power to take special measures and prescribe regulations with respect to controlling epidemic diseases has been provided to the States. The Act states that, at any time a State government is satisfied that the State or any part thereof is being visited by or threatened by any dangerous epidemic disease, and it thinks that the ordinary provisions of the law of the time being enforced are not sufficient for the purpose of controlling the epidemic, it may take, and is empowered to take, such measures as may be necessary and by public notice, as prescribed for such regulation, and which need to be observed by the public. This power has been given to State governments.
Now what is going to happen by the introduction of the proposed amendment? There will be a conflict and the Central Government will interfere in State matters. This is the gist of the problem. Why is the Centre trying to take all responsibilities? In the field, the States will work aur hum, Central Government dadagiri karenge. Dadagiri karenge hum lekin kaam aap ko karna hoga. Kaam aap ko zameen mein karna hoga, hum sirf dadagiri karenge.
This is the real amendment. Sir, so far as amendment of section 2(A) of the Act is concerned, the Central Government is now empowered to take such measures as it deems fit and is prescribed in the regulations, with respect to allowing buses, trains, goods vehicles, ship, vessels and aircraft to arrive or depart and allowing people to travel. Such provisions that have been sought have sinister possibilities and are liable to be misused at will by the Central Government. Rather than acting as an aid in tackling an epidemic, the superfluous intervention of the Centre will create more confusion. Moreover as the ground reality varies from State to State, one-size-fits-all norms, guidelines and instructions won’t work.
In the earlier Act, there were no provisions regarding the security of healthcare personal and of properties during an epidemic. Section 2(B) has been inserted in the Bill to provide that no person shall indulge in any act of violence against a healthcare personnel or damage to any property during an epidemic.
Sir, public health and sanitation, hospitals and dispensaries are State subjects as per the Constitution. This amendment to empower the Central Government to look after the safety and security of healthcare personnel and personal property has been presumably promulgated by the Government of India on the strength of health being a subject in the Concurrent List. However, this is nothing but an attempt by the Government of India to encroach upon the States, as per the Constitution. The functioning of the State’s safety and security aspects during an epidemic fall within the broad spectrum of the State’s exclusive legislative jurisdiction. In this regard, West Bengal already has a legislation under the title, ‘The West Bengal Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2009, even before the realisation of this Bill.
Sir, come to section 3, clause 6(3) and 6(3)(A), which are proposed to be amended. Who will take steps? Which government will take steps? Which officials will take steps? Which investigating agency will take steps? The Act is silent on these aspects. Just a clarification on these aspects will not do. Things will have to be stated in the Act itself. Just an oral clarification would not do.
Sir, coming to punishments, it is imprisonment for three months to five years and fine ranging from Rs 50,000 to Rs 3 lakh. For the commission of grievous acts, the prescribed penalty is imprisonment for six months to seven years and fine ranging from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 5 lakh. Imposing such a huge penalty—imprisonment upto seven years and fine upto Rs 5 lakh—by the Central Government seems draconian. Instead, the State should be authorised to continue taking decisions in this regard.
So far as sub-section 3(D) is concerned, as per the new provisions, the accused will have to prove his innocence in terms of not belonging to a culpable state of mind. The burden of proof lies on the accused. This is liable to be misused by persons with vested interests. Investigative agencies, whoever they may be under, Centre or State, normally have vested interests. Unless you satisfy the vested interests, you are likely to be made an accused. Therefore, the provision of the burden of proof of innocence lying with the accused is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Thank you, Sir, for giving me the time.
