With the spread of COVID-19, along with the central government, state governments have also announced several policy decisions to contain and prevent the spread of the virus. In this blog post, we summarise some of the key measures taken by the government of West Bengal in this regard as of April 18, 2020.
As of April 18, 2020, there have been 287 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in West Bengal. Of these, 55 have been discharged and 10 have died. To manage patients, there are 66 COVID hospitals, eight testing laboratories, and 582 institutional quarantine centres in the state.
Early response: Leading up to lockdown
Between January and February, the state government's efforts were aimed at raising awareness among citizens on COVID-19. These include advisories on observing precautionary measures, and informing citizens on travel restrictions, home isolation, and screening protocols for foreign returnees.
On March 2, the state government responded to the growing number of suspected cases by issuing guidelines for preparedness by government medical colleges and hospitals. These covered admission, isolation and management of suspected COVID-19 cases. These instructions were extended to private medical colleges and hospitals on March 7. A week later, the government issued protocols for monitoring travellers at various state checkposts by joint teams of state police and paramedical staff, and for reference of symptomatic patients to isolation facilities in the district. All cases had to be reported on a daily basis to district surveillance teams. The government also announced the closure of all educational institutions in the state (government and private) till March 31.
On March 16, the government notified the West Bengal Epidemic Disease COVID-19 Regulations, 2020. These regulations specify screening and treatment protocol for COVID-19 patients, and empower the district administration to take containment measures to curb the spread of COVID-19.
The next day, the state reported its first confirmed case of COVID-19. The government proceeded to issue orders: (i) for segregating isolation wards for suspected and confirmed COVID-19 cases, (ii) specifying treatment protocols for confirmed cases, (iii) establishing medical boards in all COVID-19 hospitals with representation from different medical disciplines, and (iv) establishing fever clinics for suspected patients. Anganwadi centres and creches were also closed, with provisions to ensure supply of two kilograms of rice and potatoes to each beneficiary.
On March 21, the government ordered the closure of certain establishments to restrict non-essential social gatherings till March 31, 2020. This included closure of restaurants, clubs, amusement parks, and museums. Further, all trains entering the state and inter-state buses were banned till March 31, 2020.
Subsequently, the government announced a lockdown. In addition to steps for physical containment, the government also undertook various health and welfare measures. These are detailed below.
Measures taken post-lockdown
On March 22, a lockdown was announced in 23 areas of the state until March 27. Restrictions during the lockdown included: (i) prohibition on public gatherings of over seven people, (ii) suspension of public transport, and (iii) closure of shops, commercial establishments, offices and factories. Establishments providing essential goods and services such as health services, print media, banks, groceries, and e-commerce delivery of food and groceries, were excluded from the restrictions. Over the next few weeks, steps were taken to expand these exemptions, and to regulate the movement of goods and services.
List of essential goods and services: On March 24, the lockdown was extended till March 31 in the entire state, and the exemptions were expanded to include industries producing coal, power, steel, or fertilisers. After the centre notified a 21-day lockdown, the list of exemptions in the state was gradually expanded to include agricultural operations, fish production, tea garden operations, and operations in krishak bazars for marketing agricultural produce. At the same time, restrictions were placed on hoarding of masks and hand sanitisers.
Last week, after the central government extended the lockdown till May 3, orders were passed for resumption of government offices from April 20 onwards at a strength of 25% of workforce. Similar permission was also granted for restricted operations in jute mills, and IT/IT enabled services.
Regulating movement of goods and services: A pass system was introduced on March 25 to regulate the movement of persons supplying essential goods and services. Transportation of non-essential cargo was prohibited till March 31, 2020. However, as a one-time measure, permission was granted on March 26 to such vehicles to reach their destination. Two days later, the government ordered for the seamless movement of commodities in all district borders and interstate areas.
Health Measures
On March 26, a Committee of Experts was constituted to advise on strategies for isolation, quarantine, testing, health infrastructure, and disease prevention. The Committee has been issuing protocols on clinical management of COVID-19 cases. The government also established various monitoring committees on setting up isolation hospitals, managing critical care, and to audit the cause of deaths related to COVID-19 patients.
To respond to the increasing number of patients, the government acquired private healthcare facilities in April. Further, to expand its testing capacity, the government recommended sample pooling for COVID-19 testing yesterday.
In addition to these measures, the government also issued several guidelines, advisories and orders on containment of the virus, patient handling and protecting healthcare workers. Some of these are detailed below:
For healthcare facilities: Advisory for setting up of isolation facilities, orders for establishment of fever clinics to segregate patients with severe symptoms, separation zones for suspected cases to protect healthcare personnel, and use of hydroxychloroquine for asymptomatic healthcare workers.
For government: Guidelines for cluster containment and treatment strategies to contain COVID-19 in hi-risk spots, directions for awareness generation among rural population for containment, and arranging for counselling sessions for quarantined patients.
Welfare/Austerity Measures
Creation of relief fund: The “West Bengal State Emergency Relief Fund” was created on March 23 to mobilise additional resources to cope with the emergency. On April 2, austerity measures were announced by the government. These include prohibition on announcement of new schemes, unless required in urgent public interest.
Distribution of food: Free entitlement of wheat and rice was announced on March 26 to beneficiaries under some food subsidy schemes (including the Antyodaya Anna Yojana) until September, 2020.
Measures for workers: Directions were notified in March for provisions on shelter, food, quarantine, wage payment, and continued tenancy for workers.
Free insurance cover was announced on April 1 for treatment of certain categories of persons, including heathcare workers, and police.
For more information on the spread of COVID-19 and the central and state government response to the pandemic, please see here.
A few minutes ago, the Supreme Court delivered a judgement striking down Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This was in response to a PIL that challenged the constitutionality of this provision. In light of this, we present a background to Section 66 A and the recent developments leading up to its challenge before the Court. What does the Information Technology Act, 2000 provide for? The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 provides for legal recognition for transactions through electronic communication, also known as e-commerce. The Act also penalizes various forms of cyber crime. The Act was amended in 2009 to insert a new section, Section 66A which was said to address cases of cyber crime with the advent of technology and the internet. What does Section 66(A) of the IT Act say? Section 66(A) of the Act criminalises the sending of offensive messages through a computer or other communication devices. Under this provision, any person who by means of a computer or communication device sends any information that is:
Over the past few years, incidents related to comments, sharing of information, or thoughts expressed by an individual to a wider audience on the internet have attracted criminal penalties under Section 66(A). This has led to discussion and debate on the ambit of the Section and its applicability to such actions. What have been the major developments in context of this Section? In the recent past, a few arrests were made under Section 66(A) on the basis of social media posts directed at notable personalities, including politicians. These were alleged to be offensive in nature. In November 2012, there were various reports of alleged misuse of the law, and the penalties imposed were said to be disproportionate to the offence. Thereafter, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court, challenging this provision on grounds of unconstitutionality. It was said to impinge upon the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. How has the government responded so far? Subsequently, the central government issued guidelines for the purposes of Section 66(A). These guidelines clarified that prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner or Inspector General of Police was required before a police officer or police station could register a complaint under Section 66(A). In May 2013, the Supreme Court (in relation to the above PIL) also passed an order saying that such approval was necessary before any arrest is to be made. Since matters related to police and public order are dealt with by respective state governments, a Supreme Court order was required for these guidelines to be applicable across the country. However, no changes have been made to Section 66 A itself. Has there been any legislative movement with regard to Section 66(A)? A Private Member Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha in 2013 to amend Section 66(A) of the IT Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill stated that most of the offences that Section 66(A) dealt with were already covered by the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. This had resulted in dual penalties for the same offence. According to the Bill, there were also inconsistencies between the two laws in relation to the duration of imprisonment for the same offence. The offence of threatening someone with injury through email attracts imprisonment of two years under the IPC and three years under the IT Act. The Bill was eventually withdrawn. In the same year, a Private Members resolution was also moved in Parliament. The resolution proposed to make four changes: (i) bring Section 66(A) in line with the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution; (ii) restrict the application of the provision to communication between two persons; (iii) precisely define the offence covered; and (iv) reduce the penalty and make the offence a non-cognizable one (which means no arrest could be made without a court order). However, the resolution was also withdrawn. Meanwhile, how has the PIL proceeded? According to news reports, the Supreme Court in February, 2015 had stated that the constitutional validity of the provision would be tested, in relation to the PIL before it. The government argued that they were open to amend/change the provision as the intention was not to suppress freedom of speech and expression, but only deal with cyber crime. The issues being examined by the Court relate to the powers of the police to decide what is abusive, causes annoyance, etc,. instead of the examination of the offence by the judiciary . This is pertinent because this offence is a cognizable one, attracting a penalty of at least three years imprisonment. The law is also said to be ambiguous on the issue of what would constitute information that is “grossly offensive,” as no guidelines have been provided for the same. This lack of clarity could lead to increased litigation. The judgement is not available in the public domain yet. It remains to be seen on what the reasoning of the Supreme Court was, in its decision to strike down Section 66A, today.
