It is apparent that local government bodies played a big role in controlling the pandemic, therefore they should be further empowered
This article is part of the series Colaba Edit 2021.
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to teach us new lessons about different facets that impact our daily existence. It has also given us time to step back and revaluate existing systems to see how they can be improved—not only for times of crisis but for the long-term well-being of citizens.
Several fault lines in our governance systems were exposed during the onset and management of the pandemic. While this was a health crisis at a scale that had not been dealt with before, it still pointed to lacunae in our legislative and governance frameworks, and the lack of preparedness to deal with a public health emergency. From the onset of COVID-19 in March 2020 till date, the response has been changing and evolving, and we are able to now assess and understand some of the management issues and how they might be resolved going forward.
From the onset of COVID-19 in March 2020 till date, the response has been changing and evolving, and we are able to now assess and understand some of the management issues and how they might be resolved going forward.
To manage the pandemic, two legislations were invoked continuously in India—the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The Epidemic Diseases Act was drafted to contain the plague and written at a time when the idea of state capacity, definitions of local governance and demands on the administration were starkly different. The Disaster Management Act was written after the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004 to deal with natural calamities. Multiple notifications, sometimes on a daily basis, were invoked under the powers of these legislations to deal with the changing demands of the pandemic. The Epidemic Diseases Act is an empowering legislation that allows the state to take action, even at the local level, permitting a decentralised response. The Disaster Management Act was used extensively for the pandemic management even though it does not deal with public health emergencies. The wide definition of a disaster under the Act allowed for infectious diseases to be brought under its ambit. The COVID-19 pandemic is a public health emergency of a magnitude not seen before, and, therefore, countries like India, and many other countries across the world, did not have existing legislations to deal with such a public health emergency. During the height of the crisis, the state invoked all legislative tools available, using these two Acts, along with provisions of criminal law and any other available statutory responses. The effect of this was seen across all sectors, leading to confusion, delay in response and a miscalculation of the local response required versus the national and/or state-level response being implemented.
During the height of the crisis, the state invoked all legislative tools available, using these two Acts, along with provisions of criminal law and any other available statutory responses.
The common thread that connected all the issues was the role of the third tier during a crisis of this magnitude. The role of local governance, from managing lockdowns to working with vaccine hesitancy, was outlined throughout the course of the pandemic. While examples can be drawn from various sectors, this essay refers to two issues that are listed under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, of which the State List is a part, and are, therefore, within the ambit of the states to legislate on. The first issue is that of a public health law that will incorporate the learnings we got from COVID-19, and the second issue is the focus on public libraries during this crisis, which reminds us of the importance of community spaces at times like this. Though diverse in their own fields, they are indicative of the role of state capacity and teach us lessons from the pandemic.
Entry 6 under the State List covers “Public health and sanitation; hospitals and dispensaries”. Some states like Assam, Tamil Nadu, and Goa (along with Daman and Diu) had public health laws prior to the onset of COVID-19. The Supreme Court Order of 31 August 2020 called upon state governments to frame a legislative and executive plan to reform the public health framework, both in terms of legal and governance structures. Empowered by health being a state subject and the Order of the Supreme Court, an important requirement for Maharashtra is to put together a state public health law that will encompass duty-power-restraint principles and outline the rights and duties not only of government and state agencies, but also of the public during a health crisis and otherwise. Importantly, the law should establish public health emergency protocols and provide for capacity building, training of healthcare workers and the establishment of evidence-based decision-making protocols. Eventually, it should work towards the creation of an empowered health law workforce, which would include experts from all fields who would be able to share information and strategies and communicate with efficient technical and legal assistance.
The law should establish public health emergency protocols and provide for capacity building, training of healthcare workers and the establishment of evidence-based decision-making protocols.
Libraries come under Entry 12 of the Seventh Schedule, List II. Libraries are critical community spaces that foster lifelong learning, and their maintenance is crucial for the development and propagation of social, cultural and economic skills. With the onset of the national lockdown, public libraries in Maharashtra were also closed. Public libraries could have played an important role at this time – the spaces could have doubled up to be used for online schooling, as resource centres for COVID-19 information, quarantine centres, vaccination spaces or any other multitude of options for the adult and child population of the state. The process and focus on digitising public libraries would have accelerated had the public libraries been open, as digitisation would have become necessary to serve the community. However, with their closure, their purpose was forfeited. If the administration and decision-making for libraries would be with urban local bodies, including ward committees and/or the Zilla Parishads, these spaces could have remained open and based on the local data on prevalence of COVID-19 cases, they could have readjusted the needs and requirements of the space.
While COVID-19 forces us to focus on health, the pandemic ravaged through all our social systems demanding an evaluation of different layers of how the state can intervene, prevent, and deal with such crises going forward. Importantly, there is still a threat of a third wave looming large, and, therefore, building state capacity and empowering the third tier continues to be relevant and necessary—not for a future unknown crisis but for the continuing risk from this pandemic itself.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dr Rahela Khorakiwala Senior Resident Fellow &: Lead Maharashtra at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
Read More +
PREV
