EMERGENCY POWERS, PUBLIC HEALTH & CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS IN THE POST-PANDEMIC WORLD: A STUDY

Abstract

The lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic has made governance of public health one of the most urgent constitutional issues of the time. In an attempt to protect citizens' lives, governments in most jurisdictions have been forced to address the issue through lockdowns, curfews, quarantines, and high-speed vaccination campaigns. Although these actions were essential through the prism of public health, they could not help but raise questions about legality, responsibility, and the safeguarding of fundamental rights. The research paper discusses the ways in which constitutional systems have sought to reconcile the crisis demands of executive power with the constitutional demands of constitutional democracy. The research paper presents a comparative analysis of how different jurisdictions, viz., the USA, the United Kingdom (UK), India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa, have responded to the pandemic, with reference to the European human rights framework. Laws/Acts like the UK Coronavirus Act 2020, India Disaster Management Act 2005, and Canada Quarantine Act 2005 gave legal authority to far-reaching powers. These measures were then reviewed by the courts, where proportionality, rationality or strict scrutiny was used depending on the circumstances. Some decisions were left to executive discretion, while others were invalidated for lack of legal authority, insufficient evidence, and other reasons. Constitutional conventions are also discussed in the research paper. The critical but weak pillars were parliamentary scrutiny, ministerial responsibility, cooperative federalism, and disclosure of scientific advice. Some conventions were adjusted to the circumstances of crisis, and some were killed by the executive domination. The paper finds that social health crises should be handled as constitutional incidents. They are not an exception to the rule of law. Instead, they demand that it should be strengthened by clear statutory authority, proportional structures to the restriction of rights, institutionalised structures of openness, and formal constructs to foster collaboration amid the various government levels. These safeguards have enabled governments to act effectively and legitimately in the event of an emergency. Meanwhile, they ensure that the key values of constitutional democracy will not be compromised in favour of expediency. By instilling these safeguards early, states are able to enter into future crises in a resilient manner that supports robust public health safeguards and remain loyal to the law, accountability, and fundamental rights protection.

KEYWORDS: Emergency Powers, Constitutional Conventions, Public Health, Pandemic.