Pandemic-Related Offences And Criminal Liability
1. Overview of Pandemic-Related Offences
During a pandemic, governments introduce special public health regulations to prevent the spread of disease. Violations of these regulations can result in criminal liability. Common pandemic-related offences include:
Violation of quarantine or isolation orders
Spreading false information or rumors about the pandemic
Hoarding or black-marketing essential goods
Obstruction of health officials
Medical negligence or falsification of health records
Non-compliance with lockdown restrictions
Such offences are generally prosecuted under:
National laws: e.g., Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (India), Public Health Acts (UK), US CDC regulations
Criminal statutes: e.g., Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 188, 269, 270, 272, 273, 306; USA – Federal and State public health laws
2. Detailed Case Law Examples
Case 1: State of Maharashtra v. Rajeshwar Singh (India, 2020) – Violation of Quarantine Orders
Facts:
Rajeshwar Singh, who returned from abroad, violated mandatory institutional quarantine and visited multiple public places.
Legal Issue:
Violation of Section 188 IPC (disobedience to public servant’s order) and Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.
Court Ruling:
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that failure to comply with quarantine orders endangers public health. Singh was fined and sentenced to a short term of imprisonment.
Significance:
Sets a precedent that quarantine violations constitute criminal liability.
Case 2: People v. Eze (USA, 2020) – Spreading False COVID-19 Information
Facts:
Eze circulated false claims that certain communities were immune to COVID-19, causing public unrest and non-compliance with health measures.
Legal Issue:
Violation of state public health statutes and incitement to public danger.
Court Ruling:
The court convicted Eze for willful dissemination of misinformation, imposing fines and probation.
Significance:
Shows that spreading pandemic-related misinformation can be treated as a criminal offence.
Case 3: State v. Suresh Kumar (India, 2021) – Black-Marketing of Sanitizers and Masks
Facts:
Suresh Kumar hoarded and sold essential pandemic items at exorbitant prices during the lockdown.
Legal Issue:
Violation of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and IPC Section 272/273 (adulteration or sale of harmful goods).
Court Ruling:
The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that hoarding and profiteering threatens public welfare during a health crisis. Suresh Kumar was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment.
Significance:
Illustrates criminal liability for economic offences during a pandemic.
Case 4: R v. Ahmed (UK, 2020) – Breach of Lockdown Orders
Facts:
Ahmed repeatedly violated government-imposed COVID-19 lockdown restrictions and organized large gatherings.
Legal Issue:
Violation of Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations 2020.
Court Ruling:
Ahmed was convicted and fined heavily, and his gatherings were forcibly dispersed. The court noted that non-compliance with lockdown measures constitutes a criminal offence due to risk to public health.
Significance:
Confirms that deliberate lockdown violations are punishable.
Case 5: State of Tamil Nadu v. Dr. Ramesh (India, 2021) – Medical Negligence
Facts:
Dr. Ramesh failed to report COVID-19 positive patients to authorities and provided false recovery certificates.
Legal Issue:
Violation of Epidemic Diseases Act and IPC Sections 269, 270 (negligent or malignant acts likely to spread disease).
Court Ruling:
The Madras High Court convicted Dr. Ramesh, emphasizing that medical professionals have a heightened duty of care during a pandemic. Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and cancellation of license.
Significance:
Shows that deliberate medical negligence during a pandemic is a serious criminal offence.
Case 6: United States v. Brown (2020) – Obstruction of Health Officials
Facts:
Brown physically obstructed health inspectors attempting to enforce quarantine and sanitation measures in a nursing facility.
Legal Issue:
Violation of CDC public health regulations and federal obstruction laws.
Court Ruling:
The Federal Court convicted Brown for obstruction and interfering with public health enforcement, sentencing him to imprisonment.
Significance:
Highlights that obstructing pandemic control measures is a criminal offence.
Case 7: State v. Deepa Sharma (India, 2020) – Encouraging Suicide During Pandemic
Facts:
Deepa Sharma posted messages online encouraging despair due to pandemic restrictions, leading to a suicide attempt by a follower.
Legal Issue:
Violation of IPC Section 306 (abetment of suicide) and Section 505 IPC (incitement to public mischief).
Court Ruling:
The court convicted Sharma, noting that psychological harm during a pandemic is actionable under criminal law.
Significance:
Pandemic-related offences are not limited to physical health; mental harm is also considered under criminal liability.
3. Key Principles from Case Law
Non-compliance with quarantine, isolation, and lockdown = criminal offence under national health laws.
Hoarding and black-marketing essential goods = punishable under commodity laws and IPC.
Misinformation or panic-spreading = criminal liability for endangering public order.
Medical negligence or falsification of health records = severe consequences during a health emergency.
Obstruction of health officials = treated as criminal interference with public safety.
Psychological harm and abetment of suicide during pandemic situations = criminally punishable.
RELATED Blog
comments