Newspapers reported on Sunday that the North Goa Collector has issued an order mandating paid ‘institutional’ or ‘facility’ quarantine for all returning Goans including the seafarers. The seafarer community and NRGs are shocked and outraged at this decision. Political analysts are wondering who has taken this decision and on what basis and why the Government is so adamant on ‘paid facility or institutional quarantine’ even to the extent of going against established international conventions and regulations.
Investigation and analysis by our team has unravelled two “competing forces” in the Goa administration, one steered by the State Executive Committee (SEC) that is trying to manoeuvre the ‘political minefield’ and come up with an effective response to the prevailing global health emergency in consonance with the international and national regulations and the other, a political force directed by the CMO vigorously trying to ‘doctor’ the decisions of the State administration to tailor it to their ‘political agenda’ even if it means violating and ‘putting the international and national norms in quarantine’. Here are details of our investigation into the global, Indian and Goan response to the pandemic disaster situation for your kind consideration and assessment.
On the National level, as per the status report filed in the Supreme Court on March 31, 2020, India began responding to the evolving global health emergency from the January 7, 2020 when the Union Health Secretary addressed all the State Health Secretaries. Subsequently, regular advisories from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) followed in tune with the regular advisories from the WHO. Recognising that the global and national situation was gradually taking a dangerous turn, and “with a view to give statutory backing for better implementation to advisories being issued by the MoHFW” (cf. SC Status Report, p. 17) the Union Home Secretary, who is the designated chairperson of the National Executive Committee under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 passed an order on March 11, 2020 delegating its power to the Union Health Secretary to issue necessary directions to the States in terms of Section 10(2)(i) and (l) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (DMA, 2005). The Union Health Secretary thereafter, kept issuing the necessary directions/advisories to the States.
However, on March 24, 2020, the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), whose Chairperson is the Prime Minister under the DMA, 2005, due to the “lack of uniformity in the measures adopted as well as in their implementation” in the country and “after assessing the situation and being satisfied, that the country is threatened by the spread of COVID-19”, “decided that it is necessary to take effective measures to prevent its spread across the country” and hence, vide its order dated March 24, 2020 directed the National Executive Committee to take charge of the disaster situation and start issuing the necessary guidelines to the States under relevant provisions of the DMA, 2005 (cf. SC Status Report, p. 19). Accordingly, as per the directions of the NDMA, the National Executive Committee (NEC) took charge and issued its first order on March 24, 2020 and has been since then issuing the necessary orders/directions/guidelines/SOPs to effectively address the pandemic. It is pertinent to note that all these orders are signed by the Union Home Secretary as the chairperson of the NEC under the relevant provisions of the DMA, 2005.
In Goa the response to the evolving global health emergency has been chaotic, to say the least. At the initial stages in keeping with the national trend, the Public Health Department (PHD) or the Directorate of Health Services (DHS) coming under the Health Ministry tried to take the pandemic head on under the dynamic leadership of the Health Minister by promptly issuing orders/directions/advisories/guidelines as per the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Health Act, 1985. On March 13, 2020, the PHD issued two notifications. The first, declaring COVID-19 and H1N1 as notifiable diseases under the above Public Health Act and the second, notifying “The Goa Epidemic Disease, COVID-19 Regulations, 2020” under the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897. Hereafter, all the orders passed by the Collectors were u/s 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1975 vis-à-vis the notification under the Public Health Act, 1985 with no reference to the DMA, 2005. However, suddenly under direction of the Chief Secretary, on March 21, 2020 the North Goa Collectorate wrote to the Director, Department of Information Technology of the measures taken by the Collectorate thus far under the DMA, 2005 when there was not even a single reference to that Act till then. In the same letter, we find for the first time a mention of the “District Disaster Management Authority” (an authority mandated at the district level under the DMA, 2005) on the Collectorate letterhead.
In the meantime, interestingly, the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) through the Secretary to the CM issued an order on March 23, 2020 forming taluka-level monitoring teams to “ensure effective implementation” of the COVID-19 related orders. Again, on March 24, 2020 the CMO issued another order forming a “High Level Committee (HLC)” to “review, monitor the COVID-19 scenario and take appropriate decision” and had its first meeting on March 25, 2020 under the Chairmanship of the CM as per the minutes available. Once again on March 25, 2020, the CMO issued an order forming State level teams “to ensure proper dissemination of information and surveillance of quarantined citizens”. Note that this order came even after the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 were invoked at the national level on March 24, 2020.
Curiously at the same time, probably through the Chief Secretary’s Office, the State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA) as mandated by the DMA, 2005 was suddenly resurrected from its limbo (probably since 2008) with an order signed by the Revenue Secretary as the Member Secretary of the SDMA on March 24, 2020 (Note: If you click on the link to the SDMA of Goa on the NDMA website it takes you to the address page of the South Goa Collectorate). Thereafter, a series of informatory flyers were issued by the SDMA under its newly created letterhead through the Information Department. Interestingly, the State Executive Committee (SEC) under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary that was apparently in the ‘ICU’ since 2008 was also finally revived as mandated by the DMA 2005 “to coordinate and monitor disaster management in the state” and “issue necessary directions” under Section 22 of the DM Act, 2005. The 4-member SEC had its first meeting under the CS on March 26, 2020 and has been meeting since then with some special invitees including the State Health Secretary.
Political analysts note that a close look at the above developments point to an intense “tussle” going on between the Chief Minister’s office (CMO) and the State Executive Committee (SEC) to ‘be in control’ of the situation. Analysts point out that apparently it also exposes the widespread ignorance of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and its provisions among the politicians and the government officials at large given also the fact that it is being exclusively and extensively used for the first time.
As per the provisions of the Disaster Management Act 2005, India formulated its National Disaster Management Policy in 2009 and the National Disaster Management Plan in 2019. Besides, the NDMA has also issued various Guidelines to the Ministries/Departments/States to help integrate measures for prevention or mitigation of various types of disasters since 2005 including guidelines on “Management of Biological Disasters” in July 2008. Health-related hazards or disasters such as pandemics are visualised in the new section that was included in the revised and recently approved National Disaster Management Plan, 2019 in the new section on “Biological and Public Health Emergencies (BPHE)” hazards (NDM Plan 2019, 7.15).
In view of the above, political and legal experts point out that the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 and the Goa Public Health Act, 1985 become superfluous in a National Disaster or Public Health Emergency situation wherein the DM Act, 2005 is enforced. Moreover, the Disaster Management Act 2005 has an overriding effect that guides India’s response to any type of disaster situation as per Article 72 of the said Act.
Thankfully, the Chief Secretary has finally taken charge of the situation as required under the DMA, 2005. However, there are signs that the Chief Secretary is still under pressure from the CMO to take decisions based more on political and other considerations rather than medical considerations as per the prevailing international and national regulations. The case of the mandatory “facility quarantine” and that too, “paid quarantine” for the repatriated Goans, such as the beleaguered seafarers and other NRGs, is a clear example of considerations other than medical guiding decisions in total violation of the international norms to which India is an official signatory.
In this context, it is noteworthy that while drafting the above National Disaster Policies or Plans or Guidelines, India has always sought to be in consonance with the international conventions or regulations or guidelines particularly those that are mandated by the United Nations or its various bodies. (cf. NDM Policy 2009, 3.5.1 and NDM Plan 2019, 13.1). Given the nature of the prevailing crisis or hazard that the world and India is facing, we are obligated to work in close coordination with the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations body that is leading the response to this global health emergency. With the declaration of the COVID-19 epidemic as a PHEIC and a pandemic the provisions of the International Health Regulations, 2005 (IHR, 2005) of the WHO became operative globally to implement effective measures to combat this global public health emergency. India, with 195 other countries, was a party to the 58th World Health Assembly which approved and adopted the revised draft of the International Health Regulations 2005 to be adopted in such medical emergencies of global significance to “prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade” (IHR 2005, Article 2 on purpose and scope).
It is evident from the above, that for the IHR 2005, the primary purpose of the regulations was to balance ‘public health response’ and avoid ‘unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade”. This means unhindered “sign-on” and “sign-off” of Seafarers, etc. It is pertinent to recall herein some of its relevant provisions: “implementation of these regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedom of persons (IHR 2005, Art 3.1); “a ship or aircraft shall not be prevented for public health reasons from calling at any point of entry” (Ibid. Art 28.1); “ships or aircrafts shall not be refused free pratique by State Parties for health reasons; in particular they shall not be prevented from embarking or disembarking” (Ibid. Art 28.2); “invasive medical examination, vaccination or other prophylaxis shall not be required as a condition of entry of any traveller to the territory of a State Party (Ibid. Art 31.1); “In implementing health measures under these regulations, State Parties shall treat travellers with respect for their dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms and minimise any discomfort or distress associated with such measures” (Ibid. Art 32).
Furthermore, “no charge shall be made by a State Party pursuant to these regulations for the following measures for the protection of public health: a) any medical examination…to ascertain the health status of the traveller concerned; c) appropriate isolation or quarantine requirements of travellers” (IHR 2005, Art 40.1). Therefore, charging for quarantine is against the IHR 2005 and hence, illegal.
The WHO issued guidelines on repatriation, home isolation and quarantine, dated February 11, 2020, March 17, 2020 and March 19, 2020 respectively. In view of these WHO guidelines, the MoHFW issued guidelines for Indian States for ‘home quarantine’ of unconfirmed cases on March 11, 2020; then, guidelines for ‘home isolation’ of confirmed cases that had mild symptoms or were asymptomatic on April 27, 2020. Hence, the health authorities both at the international and national levels permitted and offered the option of not just “home quarantine’ of unconfirmed or negative cases but even ‘home Isolation’ of confirmed or positive cases that were asymptomatic or with mild symptoms. Therefore, the question is how and who suddenly decided to “facility quarantine” unconfirmed or negative cases and decided on “paid quarantine” for those repatriated due to an Emergency or in a distress situation and on what grounds?
Reports say that some “wise men” in Goa misguided the local and national authorities into believing that the IMO and ILO guidelines apply to the seafarers in this case. Those guidelines talk of “repatriation” in general and in varied scenarios. Moreover, they refer to only seafarers, not other types of travellers. According to experts, in a Global Health Emergency, the IHR 2005 come into play and takes precedence.
Interestingly, the MoHFW issued additional guidelines on May 7, 2020 apparently to ‘cover up’ for the NEC decision of May 5, 2020 to evacuate stranded Indians abroad by making them pay for their airline fare amounting to a maximum of one lakh for those coming from USA and put them up in mandatory ‘paid facility quarantine’ for 14 days. These additional guidelines of MoHFW applicable to ‘facility quarantine’ start with these shocking words as the raison d’être for the additional guidelines: “There are a large number of facilities such as hotels, service apartments, lodges which remain unoccupied due to impact of COVID-19 on travel and tourism” indicating clearly the real motive for ‘facility quarantine’ after the MoHFW itself had offered the option of ‘home quarantine’ and even ‘home isolation’. As regards Goa, the minutes of the SEC meeting dated April 23, 2020 are revealing. They mention: “As per Cabinet decision, the employer company has to pay for these quarantine facilities” clearly revealing that in Goa the Cabinet ministers decided on the ‘paid facility quarantine’, and not the SEC.
What is amply clear from the above is that both, the Central as well as the Goa governments, are adamant on mandatory ‘paid facility quarantine’ for repatriated Indians/Goans not based on sound health/medical grounds but for purely economic reasons (to give business and seek to ‘rescue’ the airline and tourism industries) and, at least in Goa, also for political reasons (to perpetuate their propaganda of the State being “COVID-free”, even though no sensible person believes it, and to demonise those coming from outside as “carriers of the virus”). Both the reasons, economic as well as political, cannot be the basis for additional health measures as per the IHR 2005.
It is apt to note the provisions of the IHR 2005 in this regard. While accepting the sovereignty of member States to adopt additional health measures the IHR 2005 regulations, however, clearly mandate that they have to be in consonance with IHR 2005 and that these additional measures have to be based on “scientific principles”; “available scientific evidence” and “any available specific guidance or advice from WHO” (IHR 2005, Art 43.1&2). Furthermore, the IHR 2005 mandates that “A State Party implementing additional health measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article which significantly interfere with international traffic shall provide to WHO the public health rationale and relevant scientific information for it” “within 48 hours of implementation of such measures” (Ibid. Art 43.3&5). Therefore, the question is: Has India notified the WHO of these additional health measures which are clearly unscientific and in violation of article 43 of the International Health Regulations 2005?
It is our firm belief that there is no justification on ‘public health’ grounds for ‘facility quarantine’ nor ‘paid facility quarantine’ in view of the WHO and MoHFW guidelines as stated above. As we have petitioned the Prime Minister, the Government of Goa can at best use the ICMR approved Xpert-SARS-COV Testing Kits (as in the case of Kerala), a confirmatory RT-PCR Test which gives results in 45 minutes and determine whether the person requires ‘home quarantine’ or ‘facility isolation’ based on whether the test is negative or positive, respectively. Those sent for ‘home quarantine’ should be made to sign an undertaking as provided for in ‘home isolation’ guidelines. This way the cost factor of quarantine is negated and their testing can be done expressly so as not to prolong their trauma any further. Besides, the DMA 2005 has the provision of the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) or the State Disaster Response fund (SDRF) as options to defray the costs of emergency “Rescue, Relief and Rehabilitation” measures as per the NDM Plan, 2019 which can be availed of by India/Goa to pay for the above tests as well as for the airline ticket costs of other NRIs/NRGs (non-seafarers; as the companies will either pay or charter flights for seafarers) evacuated from abroad.
It is disgusting that humanitarian operations are sought to be reduced to revenue generating ATMs by the national and local governments. How crass can a government be to its own citizens in distress? It is like rubbing salt into the wounds of already traumatised and distressed people, utterly inhuman and against all humanitarian laws including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hope better sense will prevail on the national and local governments and the political executive piloted by the CMO will for once give up their ‘political delusions and hallucinations’ and allow the SEC in Goa under able and astute Chief Secretary to ‘really take charge’, revert the above illegal decisions ASAP (if needed, in consultation with NEC though, it also has the option to ignore the guidelines) and take appropriate and judicious decisions, without political or other extraneous considerations, in consonance with the prevailing International conventions and regulations to effectively address the pandemic as well as the related collateral emergency-humanitarian issues for which the government can be rest assured of our unstinted support.
