As Covid-19 spreads worldwide, governments have imposed quarantine and travel restrictions on an unprecedented scale. India shut down and banned the entire country. Thousands of people eventually became subject to legally enforced quarantine or self-quarantine. The government has also banned the entry and exit of interstate citizens and is screening travellers return from the heavily affected Corona hotspot. Nevertheless, the number of cases and deaths continues to increase.

Quarantine and travel restrictions are often the first reaction against new infectious diseases. However, these older devices are generally of limited utility for highly infectious diseases, and if installed oppressively, or very strangely, it can be keel over. With viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, they cannot provide adequate feedback. In public health practice, quarantine refers to the isolation of individuals or even communities such as the Tablighi Jamaat which has been exposed to an infectious disease.

 Isolation, by contrast, applies to the isolation of those who are known to be infected. In Indian law, however, quarantine often refers to both types of interventions, along with being limited to travel. Isolation and quarantine may be voluntary or imposed by law.

Within the country, isolation and quarantine orders have traditionally come from states. The court has generally upheld orders for broad powers of states for the protection of public health. Nevertheless, the courts sometimes intervene when quarantine was inappropriate or when officials failed to follow the necessary procedures. For example, the Delhi High Court requested the Delhi government to accept the challenge of imposing a 70% special corona fee on liquor.

The Delhi High Court sought response from the AAP government on several petitions challenging the imposition of a 70 per cent special corona fee on MRP of all liquor brands in the national capital. A division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar issued a notice to the Delhi government seeking its response to the petitions annulling and disqualifying the May 4 notification to prevent the levy from being implemented as it is ill-suited to stop the outbreak.

Although isolation and quarantine orders have been more common in recent months, several states have isolated patients with Covid-19 symptoms who did not follow self-quarantine regimens. The court ruled that there is a medical emergency. Most states, however, do not require an emergency declaration to issue a quarantine.

Quarantine is limited to prevent the spread of infectious diseases in the country or through state lines that can lead to an epidemic.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome, which covers Covid-19. Despite the breadth of its powers, the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Directorate General of Health Services (EMR Division) has generally focused on providing expert guidance to states during outbreaks. However, the agency issued a new quarantine regulation, stating that it would no longer defer to the states.

These rules make it clear that independent of state action, the ICMR can isolate, quarantine, investigate or anyone within the country may believe that ICMR officials believe that it is a communicator in the country and the disease can spread or spread throughout the state.

When the Government of India Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Directorate General of Health Services (EMR Division) declares a public health emergency, these orders can be issued against individuals in the pre-communication phase, which begins at the earliest opportunity for a person to be exposed to the infection and The person may have the latest expiration date.

Expected to become reasonably contagious. The regulations also commit ICMR and DRDO to provide medical care for those people, but they may charge insurers for that care. Besides, they establish a multi-level internal administrative review process. But they do not ensure expedient or independent review of orders or travel restrictions.

Furthermore, although the ICMR stated that it intends to use the least restrictive means necessary to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, the regulations do not require the agency to follow that standard.

However, the DRDO's quarantine powers allow it to refuse entry into the states for a quarantine disease. Governments should have a strong basis for sanctions. Because of the law regarding civil commitment, many scholars and legal jurists have concluded that isolation and quarantine are only constitutional when the government can show by clear and compelling evidence that they are the least restrictive means of protecting the public’s health.

However, at least two expert bodies, reviewing the challenges of detention after Covid-19 quarantine, claimed that the standard was not sufficiently well-established to allow claims to be pursued. Those detained, or whose freedom is otherwise restricted, are entitled to judicial review-traditionally under captive disclosure.

Finally, when governments quarantine people, they must meet the basic needs of those people to ensure access to health care, medicine, food, and sanitation. Such standards are not only constitutionally coerced and needed: they are important to ensure that detained persons obey orders.

Although we are likely to make more and more use of serious social sensory measures - such as restriction on public gatherings, school closures or cancellations, broad sanitary cordons - such as limiting geographic areas - may raise serious constitutional questions. They can also present many logistical challenges and increase the risk for those living in restricted areas.

Such measures may also have limited efficacy with a highly infectious disease like Covid-19. With community broadcasting taking place in many parts of the Indian states, it is time to recognize that travel restrictions and mandatory quarantine alone cannot end the outbreak. In a public administration, we need to argue that more creative means are needed to flatten the curve - slowing down the spread of Covid-19 in space and time - as important.

The health care system cannot sustain a major flood of infectious cases for emergency departments and hospital patients with mild symptoms should stay at home when possible. To facilitate this move, workers should be allowed to transport wherever possible to do so. But many low-wage and gig workers cannot afford to stay home. Nor can they handle the economic impact of other social distancing measures that may help slow transmission.

The government should also reduce barriers to testing and care. COVID-19's mass testing campaign may allow the government to conduct large-scale testing and it will provide free trials, but more needs to be done to ensure test kits are available. Besides, rural citizens, farmer, day labourer should be protected from adverse quarantine outcomes for testing or care or compliance with contact tracing.

Finally, emergency guidance or regulations must be issued to limit the financial impact of high-deductible health policies from private providers for Covid-19 diagnosis or treatment.

Despite the breadth and temptation of travel restrictions and mandatory quarantines, an effective response to the Covid-19 requires new, more creative devices. With Covid-19 in our communities, the time has come to envision and implement public health laws that emphasize support rather than restriction.