Blog Details

Author - Sravya Kopparapu

Introduction

All of us keep ourselves up to date with the latest news, thanks to Covid-19. A small virus has brought mankind to its knees. Earning bread and butter had become difficult with the outbreak of Covid-19. Despite the gradual relaxation of lockdown, everyone’s efforts for survival remain. For many, ordering essentials online without stepping out of the household has become a habit, courtesy the stringent lockdown.  The economy had slowed down but the Honourable Prime Minister of India has assured us that the worst is over. With the lock down relaxation of the Indian government, things are slowly beginning to pick up. 

In India, there were views whether the Lockdown was required or whether it has served its purpose? However, the events over the past week re-establish the need for the stringent implementation that had taken place. As they should, hard times call for hard measures. We see cases where people are refusing to take care and are ignorantly succumbing to the virus. At the time of writing this article, Lockdown 4.0 is in place. Any stringent measures are only applicable to the containment zones. Let’s take a quick look into various laws that have been enforced all these days.

The Law

In this light, S. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 imposing restrictions on unlawful assembly must be brought to the limelight. S. 144 authorises the Executive Magistrate of any state or territory to issue an order to prohibit the assembly of four or more persons anywhere. Among other things, this was coupled with quarantine and lockdown to ensure the safety of one and all. The added difficulty lay in not being able to loiter randomly outside for most.

It goes unsaid that an idle mind is a devil’s workshop and those unable to engage themselves at home had come up with the most perverse ideas. While social media and the internet in general has helped in multiple ways, the best can be used for the worst as well. There has undoubtedly been unwarranted circulation of false news on social media. To address this, S. 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be applied by authorities coupled with S. 144. Subsection (1) of S. 505 stipulates punishment “for making, publishing or circulating any statement, rumour or report which may cause fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public.” A wrongdoer shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 

Likewise, S. 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has a large role to play. It states that  “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, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, 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.” 

As per S. 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, “Any person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” The Act gives both the Union and State governments the power to ensure safety during an outbreak of any dangerous epidemic disease. This gives powers beyond the ordinary provisions of law. The following shall be undertaken by prescribing temporary regulations to: 

1.  Prevent the outbreak of any dangerous epidemic disease AND 
2.  Prevent the spread of dangerous epidemic disease. 

Powers given to the government under this law are to be strictly complied with as in the current situation viz. the outbreak of the coronavirus. 

As per S. 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, “Whoever makes or circulates a false alarm or warning as to disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic, shall on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine.” 

On 20.03.2020, the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India issued Advisory No. 16(1)/2020-CLES to intermediaries (as defined in S. 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000). It is an advisory to curb false news / misinformation on corona virus. It was reemphasised that intermediaries are required to follow due diligence as prescribed in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 as notified under S. 79 of the Information Technology Act. “They must inform their users not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, update or share any information that may affect public order and unlawful in any way.”  In situations such as this, the intermediaries would have to keep close watch as stipulated by the Union government to prevent any fear or violence due to false information provided by any. Despite this as these laws being enforceable, people have been spreading false news in the garb of experience sharing. Now, admins of WhatsApp groups are being held responsible for any false information circulated by any member of the group. This is an effective measure which ensured that the admins became better proactive.

Privacy of users is a double-edged sword. While supervising activity of users on social media or internet, the intermediaries shall always be alert regarding the privacy of users. It provides efficient communication to people at all times. On the lop side, floating of unnecessary and dubious material time and again is a cause of worry. Forwards are required to share important pieces of information. Yet, forwards could even be used to cause alarm in the minds of people as well. Through all of this, how far could privacy go? Anonymity of users has always been regarded essential. Is it more important than well-being of oneself and society, eventually the nation? 

In the famous case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India addressed the concept of ‘right to privacy’ as broadly included under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 speaks of the ‘right to life’. Although such rights fall under Part III of the Constitution, they are undoubtedly subject to certain ‘reasonable restrictions’. As, Kaul, J. said ‘Legality, necessity, proportionality and procedural safeguards’ “which echoes Article 21’s central requirement of having a procedure established by law” have to be kept in mind. It must be just, fair and reasonable. Article 21’s scope continues to expand and evolve as each new fact situation arises. Perhaps the current state of affairs would broaden the expanse. Applying the utilitarian approach of greatest good for the greatest number, it is only fair to say that the intermediaries and government may keep a close watch on all communication made through various platforms. This will facilitate safety of all nationals / residents to an extent. 

Consumers under the new Act

As aforementioned, with lockdown due to Covid-19, except for day to day necessities no in person commercial transactions had been permitted. This is when e-commerce proves to give the best opportunity to the civilian. Now, with the slow opening of the market through Lockdown 4.0, people are going to crowd stores / shops. That is worrisome. Thankfully, with the onset of the 21st century, we are all aware of how gadgets are proving to be extremely helpful to many. God save e-commerce!

Be it e-commerce or any commercial transaction between two individuals directly, differences are plausible. In case of any dispute, a Court of law could be approached with clean hands. Consumer law gives convenient relief to any consumer wronged. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ensured such rights. The Legislature has now brought about an improved Consumer Protection Act, 2019 into being.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is yet to come into force, when notified by the Central government. As per the new Act, pecuniary jurisdiction of the lower consumer Courts is to increase. Further, apart from the seller, the product manufacturer, product service provider and product seller are all held liable under the new Act. E-commerce platforms are included as well as defined in the new `Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The new Consumer Protection Act is more consumer pro. However, while laying down stringent rules in favour of the consumer, any unauthorised modifications to the goods received by the buyer are not covered.

The new Act broadly defines unfair trade practices. So much so, penalties for misleading advertisements have also been included. Not only is the seller / service provider responsible, but also those celebrities endorsing/brand ambassadors would be held liable as well, when warranted. Further, e-filing of complaints has been included in the new Act. This makes it far easier for the lay man to approach consumer courts / commissions.

Providing some solace to Courts, the new Act brings in Alternate Dispute Resolution. Mediation has thus been included in the new Act to enable speedy disposal and ensure reduced pressure on the Consumer Courts.

When consumers purchase services online, disputes may arise therefrom. It would be quite interesting to think of the umpteen number of medico-insurance related consumer cases that may arise as a repercussion of Covid-19. 

In relation to goods, the scales may tip towards settlements even before cases eventualise. Businesses want their customers. The consumer wants what is best and most convenient. There is also the possibility that the consumer is selling to another. Keeping this in mind, neither would want to disrupt the commercial chain. This is where the possibility of negotiations and out of court settlements may become sought after options.

To conclude, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is welcome for consumers across the nation. Caveat emptor (buyer beware) is no longer a worry once the new Act is notified. Rights of the consumer can be enforced, with ease, leading to the desired remedies. In essence, the rights of no person are locked down. If anything, it was only physical movement that has been to some extent restricted for the larger better.

Conclusion

The Government has put in remarkable efforts to regularise the imbalance caused by Covid-19. The free opening of alcohol stores, however, brings the whole concept to question. With queues that are kilometres long outside liquor shops, is there really any social distancing? Good excuse to be out on the streets. Here arises the question of revenue, tax and true safety as depicted through Lockdown 4.0. Which one do we think matters more? A proper balance needs to be struck. Each of us at the individual level needs to think about it. 

Social distancing has been the key to circumventing Covid-19 and will continue to be for at least a few more months. This pandemic is an impetus for self-control and caution. Even with Lockdown 4.0, though a lot more relaxations have been provided, each of us helping the economy grow, we must continue to trod careful steps. Subsequent to lockdowns and relaxations, we must be watchful. For the question remains whether Covid-19 would ever leave the planet or whether it would be discretely hovering around.  

Are we really forcefully locked down or are we helping ourselves, the community, the State, the country and the world as a whole by locking ourselves down or maintaining social distance? The choice remains with us. The change begins with us to revive and relive a pollution free environment and live healthy lives like our forefathers. Fresh oxygen awaits. We can decide for ourselves. Don’t forget the cute and innocent animals out there! Please take a well-informed decision for the betterment of life on this planet for a better today and tomorrow. Let’s abide by the rules and regulations laid down in this crisis situation for the universal good.

I end this article humming a few lines from Michael Jackson’s ‘Heal the World’:  

“There are people dying,
If you Care Enough for the Living,
Make it a Better Place
For You and For Me!”