Against gender bias

Published : Jan 19, 2002 00:00 IST

The Supreme Court raps nine State governments for failure to conform to its order of May 2001 relating to the implementation of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act.

DECEMBER 10 turned out to be a somewhat unusual day for the District Collector of Salem, Tamil Nadu. A Monday as any other and a "Grievances Day", it proved to be different in that two couples, in full view of the public, handed over their new-born female infants to Collector J. Radhakrishnan, to be looked after under the "cradle baby" scheme of the State government, a scheme that involves the government taking up responsibility for bringing up any unwanted girl child. The district, known for the practice of female infanticide, was witnessing a transformation of sorts, although the act only sought to reinforce the "unwanted girl child" phenomenon.

Coincidentally, the same day, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court hauled up nine States - Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Delhi and Bihar - for not complying with its May 2001 order directing all States and Union Territories to implement the provisions of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act and report to it on the action taken. It ordered the Health Secretaries of these States to be present on January 29 to explain any measures taken to implement the Act. The court also asked nine companies to supply information on the number of ultrasound scanning machines delivered to clinics and other medical facilities in the last five years. The Central government was directed to frame appropriate rules with regard to the sale of ultrasound scanning systems and check their sale to unregistered clinics. The State governments were directed to publish the names of the members of the district-level Advisory Committees in order to enable any citizen to approach them with a complaint.

It is unlikely that the particular acts of giving away the girl children were the result of any campaign against female infanticide since the State governments have made little real headway in implementing the law as it exists. While Tamil Nadu, like most other States, has an adverse child sex ratio (in the age group of 0-6), it fares better than Punjab, Haryana, Uttaranchal, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Gujarat. The districts in Tamil Nadu that reflect a huge gap in the child sex ratio - with less than 900 female babies for every thousand male babies - are Salem, Theni, Madurai and Namakkal. This, according to the affidavit submitted by the State government, was mainly owing to the incidence of female foeticide and female infanticide.

The fact that the Supreme Court directive was necessitated brought to the fore the lack of political will, indeed reluctance, to correct the prevailing gender imbalances and biases. Despite the court directives in May 2001, several State governments have moved rather slowly in the matter of implementing the PNDT Act. If anything, the provisional Census figures of 2001 should have shaken them out of their complacency.

The PNDT Act was enacted by the Union government in 1994 and came into force in individual States thereafter, as and when each of them framed the relevant rules. It provides that no genetic counselling centre, laboratory or clinic shall employ pre-natal diagnostic techniques, including ultra-sonography, for the purpose of determining the sex of the foetus. It effectively debars the use of any such technique for the purpose of determining the sex of the foetus and prohibits any advertisement relating to pre-natal sex determination. Any violation of the provisions of the Act is punishable with imprisonment of a term which may extend to five years, and a fine. A report of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare shows that only a few cases of violation have been reported, whereas Census 2001 figures indicate that the practice could be rampant at least in Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh and Delhi.

Taking a serious view of the decline in the sex ratio and the connection it may have with the use of pre-natal sex determination, the Supreme Court had, in its May order, directed the Centre to implement the PNDT Act in all its aspects. The order came following a public interest petition filed by three petitioners, the Centre for the Enquiry of Health and Allied Themes (CEHAT), the Mahila Sarvangeen Utkarsh Mandal (MASUM) and Dr. Sabu George, who had done extensive research in this area. In its wide-ranging directive, the court pointed to several features contained in the Act that include bi-annual meetings of the Central Supervisory Board (CSB) and the creation of public awareness by the Central and State governments against pre-natal sex determination and female foeticide. The CSB, the reviewing and monitoring authority, was to receive quarterly returns from Appropriate Authorities in the States and Union Territories containing information about the survey of genetic and other clinics, registration of bodies as laid down in Section 3 of the Act, action taken against non-registered bodies as specified under Section 3, complaints received by the authorities and lastly, the number and nature of awareness campaigns conducted and the results flowing therefrom.

Directions to the State government included the setting up of empowered Appropriate Authorities at the district and sub-district levels and Advisory Committees comprising three medical experts and one legal expert, three social workers and one government functionary, to aid and advise the authorities in the discharge of their functions. The authorities were directed to take prompt action against any person or body who issued or caused to be issued any advertisement in violation of the Act. However, neither have the names of the members of the committee been made public nor have details been submitted about the number of meetings it has held. The Act had laid down that the committee should meet at least once in two months. But it appears that the authorities and committees in the majority of States, barring West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Bihar and Chhattisgarh, have not had such meetings. Punjab and Chandigarh conducted surveys to collect data on the clinics but did not provide any figures.

Tamil Nadu stated in its affidavit that there were 1,541 clinics in the State, of which 1,489 had been registered under the Act. While Tamil Nadu reported two prosecutions, Bihar reported four, Chandigarh two, Delhi three, West Bengal 11 and Haryana four, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh did not report any. Practically no action had been taken against bodies found not registered under the Act.

One State which has registered a significant drop in the child sex ratio is Haryana - 820:1,000 compared to 879:1,000 in 1991.

IRONICALLY, B.S. Dahiya, a Civil Surgeon of Faridabad district in Haryana, who exposed two clinics found violating the PNDT Act, faced the threat of transfer. His zealousness in booking the violators had perhaps ruffled some feathers in the political establishment of the State.

Appreciating Dahiya's role, Union Health Secretary A.R. Nanda wrote to Secretary (Family Welfare), Haryana government, G. Madhavan, on December 6, saying that the "excellent initiative taken by the Civil Surgeon, Faridabad Dr. Dahiya and his team has made the district Faridabad as an exemplary district in successful implementation of the PNDT Act. The campaign both in terms of legal enforcements and social awareness campaign in the district has to be sustained for about six months more if any significant impact is to be expected. The transfer of Dr. Dahiya at this crucial stage will slow the pace of implementation." Nanda suggested that Dahiya be retained in his post for another six months.

When counsel for the petitioners, represented by Supreme Court advocate Indira Jaising and others, pointed out the case of Dahiya's transfer, the Bench on December 10 observed that the action of the State government was unjustified if the officer was being transferred because he was taking action against defaulting clinics.

While it is heartening to note that the implementation of the Act has become an issue, much needs to be done by the Central and State governments to ensure that the medical fraternity does not use technology that ultimately goes against the girl child. While the ambit of the Act is sought to be broadened through amendments, it is the strict enforcement of it in its present form that will serve as a deterrent against gender bias.

Sign in to Unlock member-only benefits!
  • Bookmark stories to read later.
  • Comment on stories to start conversations.
  • Subscribe to our newsletters.
  • Get notified about discounts and offers to our products.
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment