Another member said that if the strict measures taken in the interests of public welfare caused any hardship,

they should be “borne cheerfully” by

people. There was some critique of the Bill’s hurried passage since little time had been earmarked for feedback from the general public. The
government maintained that the Bill’s vague wording was meant to benefit local government bodies that could potentially apply the Act in a way
that suited their particular conditions.

Thus the Act had an authoritarian streak to it right from the beginning – first in terms of the ideas that powered it – “public must trust the
discretion of the government” – and second, in terms of the wide-ranging and almost unlimited powers it conferred on local authorities.
According to conventional medical knowledge of the time, the plague’s spread could be prevented through measures like isolation of affected
persons, cleansing houses, destroying or disinfecting clothes, and rigorously screening for signs of the plague (like swellings on some parts of the
body). It was for the legally smooth implementation of such considerably drastic measures that this Act, and the immense power for government
personnel, were considered necessary After
the amendment Act of 2005, a Division bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, in the case of Prakash & Others Vs. Phulavati & Others1 held that the
Act of 2005 is prospective in nature and that rights conferred on daughter, under Section 6 of the
Act of 2005, is on the living daughter of a living coparcener, requiring the coparcener to be alive
as on 09.09.2005 so as to enable the daughter to claim rights over the coparcenary property. In
this case the coparcener had died prior to 2005 amendment hence it was held that his daughter is
not entitled to share in the coparcenary property. In a subsequent judgement of Division bench
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court , the Court took a contradicting view from that of decision in
Phulavati case and held that daughters have equal rights in the coparcenary property as that of
son, even though the coparcener had died before the amendment of 20052. 

Then, there was appeal in supreme court about the contradictory decision of divisional bench of
supreme court in above two cases in the larger bench of 3 judges of supreme court. Then the
decision of venit shrma v rakesh shrma judgment came in

Thus, the Epidemic Disease Act of 1897 came in a particular context and undoubtedly carries a colonial baggage and its
associated struggle. In this regard, likewise many other colonial era legislations necessary amendments may make it more
suitable, humane and fit for tackling epidemic like situations in contemporary India.

1
(2016) 2 SCC 36.
2
Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Another Vs. Amar & Others, (2018) 3 SCC 343.