CIVIL SOCIETY REPORT CARD PCPNDT ACT - Girls Count Card 2015 - final.pdf · CIVIL SOCIETY REPORT...

01

Review of court cases, inspections and actions taken by state medical councils

CIVIL SOCIETY REPORT

CARD PCPNDT ACTon

December 2015

Review of court cases, inspections and actions taken by state medical councils

CIVIL SOCIETY REPORT

CARD PCPNDT ACTon

December 2015

ii

Design and print: Aspire Design, New Delhi | www.aspiredesign.in

iii

Acknowledgement

Girls Count takes this opportunity to express its sincere gratitude to all those who helped in the successful completion of this civil society report card. A special thanks to the National Foundation for India (NFI) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for their unremitting support and guidance. We are highly grateful to Ms Bindu Sharma, Director, PNDT, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India, for her feedback.

We are thankful to Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) for providing us access to the affi davits fi led by the states/union territories in the Supreme Court of India as directed in the matter of Writ Petition (civil) no. 346 of 2006 fi led by Voluntary Health Association of Punjab (VHAP). We would also like to articulate our gratefulness to Advocate Ms Leena Prasad, who reviewed the affi davits and provided her valuable insight and expertise.

We earnestly appreciate our coalition partners: Dalit Mahila Vikas Mandal (DMVM), Maharashtra; Grass Root Support Foundation (GRSF), Delhi; Mayaram Surjan Foundation (MSF), Chhattisgarh; R. P. Education Society (RPES), Haryana; Sikshit Rojgar Kendra Prabandhan Samiti (SRKPS), Rajasthan; Social Upliftment Through Rural Action (SUTRA), Himachal Pradesh; Vatsalya, Uttar Pradesh; and Voluntary Health Association of Punjab (VHAP), Punjab; for facilitating the process of data collection for the report card.

We are also immensely grateful to the Directorate of Health Services, Chhattisgarh; Department of Health and Family Welfare, Delhi; Director General Health Services, Haryana; Department of Health Safety and Regulation, Himachal Pradesh; State PCPNDT Cell, Pune, Maharashtra; Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab; and State PCPNDT Cell, Directorate of Medical Health and Family Welfare Services, Rajasthan; for sharing valuable information related to the implementation of the PCPNDT Act in their respective states. Without their support it would not have been possible to put together this Report Card.

v

List of Abbreviations

AA Appropriate Authority

APP Assistant Public Prosecutor

CJM Chief Judicial Magistrate

CMO Chief Medical Offi cer

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code (Indian)

CSB Central Supervisory Board

CSR Child Sex Ratio

DAA District Appropriate Authority

DAC District Advisory Committee

DCSR Declining Child Sex Ratio

DMA Delhi Medical Association

DMC Delhi Medical Council

GBSS Gender-Biased Sex Selection

GC Genetic Clinic

GCC Genetic Counseling Centre

GL Genetic Laboratory

IMA Indian Medical Association

IPC Indian Penal Code

IVF In-Vitro Fertilisation

JMFC Judicial Magistrate First Class

MCI Medical Council of India

MoHFW Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

MPMC Madhya Pradesh Medical Council

MTP Medical Termination of Pregnancy

NIMC National Inspection and Monitoring Committee

PCPNDT Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques

PIL Public Interest Litigation

PIR PCPNDT Inspection Report

PNDT Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques

PP Public Prosecutor

SAA State Appropriate Authority

SAC State Advisory Committee

SI Simple Imprisonment

SIHFW State Institute of Health and Family Welfare

SIMC State Inspection and Monitoring Committee

SRB Sex Ratio at Birth

SRS Sample Registration System

SSB State Supervisory Board

U/s Under Section

UoI Union of India

UPMC Uttar Pradesh Medical Council

1

Content

Acknowledgement i

List of Abbreviations iii

About the Civil Society Report Card 2-3

Analysis of Affidavits 4-15

A Compilation of Data on Court Cases, Inspections and Action taken by State Medical Councils 17-111

Bihar 18-25

Chhattisgarh 26-32

Delhi 34-41

Gujarat 42-47

Haryana 48-55

Himachal Pradesh 56-63

Madhya Pradesh 64-69

Maharashtra 70-79

Odisha 80-87

Punjab 88-95

Rajasthan 96-103

Uttar Pradesh 104-111

Conclusion 112-113

2

METHODOLOGYGirls Count directly and through its partner organisations approached 12 states with formats designed specifi cally to obtain the quantitative data pertaining to monitoring and inspection, court cases and action initiated by the State Medical Councils. Baring a few states, data was not made available to us for all the fi elds and for the time period mentioned. For a couple of states we had to depend completely on their affi davits and for some we had to collect the data from the presentations that the state representatives had made during the recent state-level meetings. And for some other states, we used the combination of all these sources.

This Report Card focuses mainly on the following three indicators to draw conclusions and inferences from the data collected through different sources including the affi davits submitted in the Supreme Court of India:

1. Monitoring and inspections

2. Filing of court cases

3. Action initiated by State Medical Councils under the PCPNDT Act

SOURCE OF DATAThe following sources were used to collect the quantitative data from the states selected for the Report Card since the inception of the PCPNDT Act till the fi ling of the affi davits by December 2014 and in the early months of 2015:

The affi davits fi led in the Supreme Court (Septem-ber 16, 2014 onwards) by the 13 states in the PIL VHAP v/s UoI case.

Information provided to Girls Count by the State PCPNDT Cell and the State Health Department.

Presentations made during the Regional Workshop organised by the State Institute of Health and Family Welfare (SIHFW) and United Nations Popu-lation Fund (UNFPA) for the Appropriate Authori-ties in September 2015, in Jaipur.

Offi cial websites of the state governments.

About the Civil Society Report CardThe Civil Society Report Card is a review of affi davits and compilation of data and information of selected states pertaining to monitoring and inspection, court cases and the action taken by the State Medical Councils under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act. This Report Card is a part of a series of reports reviewing the implementation of the PCPNDT Act on the ground. The fi rst Report Card, released in August, 2014 covered information on current structure and status of statutory mechanisms constituted under the Act. The idea behind compiling this Report Card was to review the implementation/progress made in the states since the inception of the Act. The Report Card does not look at the issue simplistically and considers the absence of monitoring and inspection, and fi ling of court cases or convictions as a symptom of non-implementation of the Act.

The fi rst part of the Report Card includes a summary and analysis of the affi davits fi led in the Supreme Court of India by the governments of 13 states around the three indicators of the implementation of the PCPNDT Act. We in this part have tried to highlight on the action initiated by the states and the process followed by them. The second part of the Report Card includes state specifi c chapters where an attempt has been made to showcase what the data implies in terms of what the states are doing, what the states are not doing and what more they should do.

3

LIMITATIONSThe Report Card lacks uniformity in the state-wise presentation of data because of certain impediments faced by Girls Count in the compilation of data. The limitations were:

Access to data: Despite repeated requests to the concerned departments, Girls Count was not able to get hold of all the data required for the Report Card from some states.

Non-availability of data with the department: Many concerned departments did not have all the information/data requested by Girls Count.

Lack of uniformity in time period: The con-cerned departments did not provide the data at the same time and of the same time period.

Lack of information in affidavits: All the states have not revealed the complete information in their affi davits submitted to the Supreme Court.

WHY VARYING TIME FRAME?The time frame of the data mentioned in the Report Card varies from state to state and from fi eld to fi eld due to the following reasons:

After the Supreme Court order dated September 16, 2014, asking states to submit the affi davits, states fi led their affi davits on different dates over a period of three months (by the end of 2014). Some of them even submitted the supplementary affi davits in early 2015.

The states took their own time to share the data with Girls Count. So the information provided by them differs from state to state and does not match with the cut-off date of December 2014.

Offi cial websites of many of the states have not been updated. A few states have not even updated the data relevant to the Report Card since more than a year.

We believe that a Report Card of this kind could possibly help the state governments do an internal review and assessment of the implementation of the PCPNDT Act and introspect about the work done since its inception till now. Wherever inspections have been undertaken, violations have been found; wherever cases have been systematically fi led and pursued, convictions have taken place; and wherever the judiciary has taken cognizance of the matter in terms of its long-term social ramifi cations, the crime has been dealt in line with the intent of the law.

What is important to highlight here is the fact that absence of action such as court cases does not mean absence of violations. And therefore one can get a sense of the level of seriousness attached to the issue by looking at the number of inspections done, cases fi led in the court and cases reaching the stage of conviction.

(Bodies/Centres: A genetic counselling centre, genetic laboratory, genetic clinic, ultrasound clinic, imaging centre, nursing home, hospital, institute or any other place where machines or equipment capable of detecting the sex of foetus is used)

4

Analysis of AffidavitsIn response to the Supreme Court order dated September 16, 2014, following affidavits were reviewed:

Chhattisgarh November 14, 2014

Delhi undated

Gujarat December 6, 2014

Haryana undated

Himachal Pradesh October 17, 2014

Himachal Pradesh (Supplementary Affi davit) December 8, 2014

Madhya Pradesh November 22, 2014

Maharashtra November 13, 2014

Odisha January 19, 2015

Rajasthan October 14, 2014

Uttar Pradesh November 19, 2014

Tamil Nadu October 11, 2014

In response to the Supreme Court order dated November 25, 2014, following affidavits were reviewed:

Bihar January 7, 2015

Delhi December 11, 2014

Punjab December 4, 2014

Tamil Nadu December 10, 2014

Union of India December 8, 2014

In response to the Supreme Court order dated February 18, 2015, following affidavits were reviewed:

Union of India April 9, 2015

In addition, the following affidavits were also reviewed:

Bihar April 13, 2015

Bihar (objection to UoI Affi davit fi led on April 9, 2015) April 28, 2015

Bihar September 11, 2015

Madhya Pradesh (in response to revised directions sought by petitioner) March 12, 2015

7

IntroductionThe signifi cant gap in the number of girls born as

compared to boys and also the declining child sex ratio

in the country establish clearly that gender-biased sex

selection is unabated. However, the Supreme Court of

India has taken a serious note of this issue along with

the non-implementation of the Pre-Conception and Pre-

Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection)

Act, 1994, after a public interest litigation was fi led by the

Centre for the Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes

(CEHAT). Another PIL in the name of Voluntary Health

Association of Punjab (VHAP) is also currently pending

in the Apex Court. The court in this matter has noted that

the discrimination against girl child still exists in the Indian

society due to various reasons which has its roots in social

behaviour and prejudices against the girl child, and also

due to the evils of the dowry system still prevailing in

the society. The declining sex ratio at birth and child sex

ratio in most parts of the country lead to an irresistible

conclusion that the practice of gender-biased sex selection

with misuse of the pre-conception and pre-natal diagnostic

techniques is widely prevalent.

The Parliament of India enacted the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT Act) which has its roots in Article 15(2) of the Constitution of India. The Parliament was fully conscious of the fact that increasing imbalance between men and women leads to increased crime against women, traffi cking, sexual assault, polygamy, etc. Unfortunately, the facts also reveal that perpetrators of the crime belong to the educated middle class who strangely often do not perceive the gravity of the crime.

IN RECENT YEARS OVER 2,000 COURT CASES HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE COUNTRY THOUGH MANY GAPS REMAIN TO BE ADDRESSED

8

The Supreme Court, as early as in 2001, in the Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes v. Union of India (2001) 5 SCC 577 case had noticed the misuse of the Act and had given various directions for its proper implementation. Non-compliance of various directions was again noticed by the Court in the Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes v. Union of India (2003) 8 SCC 398 case and the Court gave various other directions. Having noticed that those directions as well as the provisions of the Act are not being properly implemented by the states and union territories, an order was issued on January 8, 2013, directing personal appearance of the Health Secretaries of the States of Punjab, Haryana, National Capital Territory Delhi, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Maharashtra in the court, to examine what steps they have taken for the proper and effective implementation of the provisions of the Act as well as on the various directions issued by the Apex Court.Even though the Union of India has constituted the Central Supervisory Board and most of the states and union territories have constituted State Supervisory Boards, Advisory Committees and appointed Appropriate Authorities under the Act, their functioning is far from satisfactory.

The 2011 Census of India, published by the Offi ce of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, shows a decline in the child sex ratio in many states of India from 2001-2011. The Sample Registration Survey (SRS) Statistical Report- 2013 published by Census of India also presents a grim picture in relation to the sex ratio at birth in bigger states like Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.

The above statistics and report indicates that the provisions of the Act are not being properly and effectively implemented. In many states there has been no effective supervision or follow up action in order to achieve the object and purpose of the Act.

After a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was fi led in the Supreme Court in the year 2000, probably the fi rst case under the Act was fi led in 2001 in Palwal district of Haryana which had resulted in conviction in 2006. As the review of affi davits reveals, since then fi ling of court cases have picked up speed and in recent years over 2,000 court cases have been fi led in the country though a number of gaps remain to be addressed. Monitoring and inspection of centres by authorities is an area that needs special attention. In some of the states, authorities under the Act, seldom monitor the misuse of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for determination of the sex of the foetus.

The Union of India had fi led an affi davit in September 2011 giving details of the prosecutions under the Act and the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules’), up to June 2011. The fi gures in the chart as well as the data made available by various states, depicts a sorry and an alarming state of affairs. The details made available to the Supreme Court clearly demonstrate lack of proper supervision and effective implementation of the Act by various states.

AN ANALYSIS OF AFFIDAVITS

In this chapter, we have analysed the affi davits fi led by the state governments of 13 states in this matter. We have particularly used the following three indicators to draw conclusions, data and inferences from the affi davits fi led by the different states.

1. Monitoring and inspections

2. Filing of court cases

3. Action initiated by State Medical Councils

9

OVERALL OBSERVATIONSThe affi davits fi led by the states show that there have been around 43,616 inspections conducted/centres inspected across the 13 states. Registrations of over 1,884 centres have been suspended/cancelled. A total of 1,765 ultrasound machines have been sealed/seized for different violations. Over 91 medical professionals have faced action by their respective State Medical Councils wherein their names have been removed or suspended from the rolls of the Council and another 38 medical practitioners have been reprimanded. Though around 2,083 court cases have been fi led under the Act in all the 13 states, it is seen that convictions have been arrived only in 11 per cent of the cases (224 convictions).

With the Supreme Court closely monitoring the implementation of the PCPNDT Act in India and clearly viewing it as a critical concern, it can defi nitely be said that state governments are now

viewing the issue of declining child sex ratio seriously. It can also be seen from the various affi davits that the implementation, monitoring and reporting of data varies from state to state and speaks volumes about the status in the respective states. It is unfortunate that even though the Supreme Court had sought the data in a particular format, the ways of reading, interpreting and reporting differs from one state to the other both quantitatively as well as qualitatively. It is untoward that even though the states were asked to share information in a uniform format, the affi davits lack uniformity in information, content and style.

It will not be wrong if it is said that in the case of some states, they have completely ignored the format and the specifi c information asked and have submitted information that is generic and not to the point. This may lead to the inference that these states did not have the

specifi c data they were asked for. Thereby, it can be said that the law is not being properly implemented in these states or a benefi t of doubt can be given to them by inferring that the states did not understand the information that the Supreme Court was seeking and hence failed to submit the data required. It may also be seen that some states such as Haryana and Rajasthan are good in documenting the work done on the law and hence were able to submit detailed information, while other states such as Bihar and Tamil Nadu lack in documentation work and hence have not been able to submit the details clearly and vividly. In the affi davit submitted by Bihar on April 25, 2015, about the details of the district-wise court cases fi led, the information is incomplete.

OVER 91 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS HAVE FACED ACTION BY THEIR RESPECTIVE STATE MEDICAL COUNCILS

CONVICTIONS HAVE BEEN ARRIVED ONLY IN

11 PER CENT OF THE CASES

AROUND

2,083 COURT CASES HAVE BEEN FILED UNDER THE ACT IN ALL THE 13 STATES

Based on an analysis of the submissions made by various states in their affidavits, some of the preliminary findings are:

10

SOME ENCOURAGING STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION!

Though the affi davits fi led by many states do not reveal much, a few of the states have indicated constructive actions by the administration and legal authorities in fi ling and dealing with cases under the PCPNDT Act.

DELHI Some positive trends have been seen in the national capital Delhi. There is the example of a case fi led by the District Appropriate Authority against an author and publisher for advertisements assuring the birth of a son.

In yet another good step, at a State Supervisory Board (SSB) meeting in Delhi, the Director of Prosecution was involved in SSB meetings to give support and inputs in legal areas. The prosecution in Delhi identifi ed a few reasons for cases not being fast-tracked in the state, some of them being lack of legal assistance to District Appropriate Authority, frequent transfers of Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) and long dates of hearing in the court. The Director of Prosecution in one of the meetings has emphasised on the need for a fast track court in each district under a female Sessions Judge. Involving the Director of Prosecution in the SSB meetings is an exceptionally good step and can show the way to convergence if the intent is to strictly implement the Act in its true spirit.

MADHYA In Madhya Pradesh, given the low number of PRADESH inspections conducted, efforts have been made to

seek information from the public by promising them an award of Rs 50,000 in cash if a challan is issued on the basis of the information provided and another Rs 50,000 on conviction. In one of its meetings held on July 28, 2014, the SSB awarded Rs 50,000 to a public spirited person for helping the department register two cases under the Act in Gwalior.

RAJASTHAN It is encouraging to note that the State Appropriate Authority (SAA), Rajasthan, is the only authority that has fi led 23 cases against manufacturers, sellers and dealers for failure to provide information before selling their ultrasound machines and this has resulted in seven convictions. In another landmark action, 150 ultrasound machines have been ceased to prevent its misuse in the absence of an authorised person.

HARYANA Thirteen persons have been awarded under incentive for informer scheme in the last two years (2013-2014) and out of them three persons were awarded Rs 50,000, Rs 30,000 and Rs 20,000 in Gurgaon, Jhajjar and Kaithal districts respectively.

ISSUES OF CONCERN

Unfortunately, the affi davits fi led by some states reveal trends which are dangerous and need further examination. It has been observed that most court cases have been fi led on one particular date in Bihar, a trend showing bulk case fi ling. While most of the cases were fi led in East Champaran on May 31, 2013; in Siwan, seven cases were fi led on September 29, 2013, seven on June 1, 2013, and fi ve on June 20, 2013.

Another step taken in Rajasthan is the setting up of special police station in the form of PCPNDT Bureau of Investigation (PIB) under the Medical and Health Department at Jaipur. It is important to mention here that the police have no role to play under the PCPNDT Act. Any investigation by police in any matter related to violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules may further complicate the matter.

Similarly, in one particular district of Delhi, the District Appropriate Authority hired the services of one particular private lawyer for all the cases. The practice of hiring private lawyers is a positive trend, but surprisingly there are not many cases of convictions in the district despite hiring a private lawyer. Hence this development/redressal mechanism needs to be critically examined from transparency point of view. In no other districts has this trend of

MOST COURT CASES HAVE BEEN FILED ON ONE PARTICULAR DATE IN BIHAR, A TREND SHOWING BULK CASE FILING

11

hiring private lawyers been seen and most of the cases are being dealt by the state prosecutor.

Wherever relevant, the cases fi led in Delhi under the PCPNDT Act have also referred to sections from the MTP Act, and especially in those cases where it was found that the centre was not registered under the PCPNDT Act and an ultrasound was found to be done before the abortion. The use of the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act in Delhi needs to be reviewed here particularly because abortion is legal under certain circumstances in the country and all abortions are not done for the reason of sex selection.

Again, the State Supervisory Board in Delhi has suggested in one of its meeting that the District Appropriate Authority (DAA) should secure services of Police Department in prosecuting violators of the Act and fi le FIR in all cases of violation, and that the cases should be taken up together under CrPC and PCPNDT Act.

In an instance in Bihar, inspection was done on April, 2, 2013, and court case was fi led on April 4, 2013, only within two days! In many instances in Siwan district, court cases were fi led on the same day the centres were inspected. In another instance, as mentioned in the affi davit, a court case was fi led fi ve days before the centre was inspected. Another case in point is

of the 159 court cases in the state, about 10 centres were sealed and closed in Darbhanga district on May 14 and 30, 2013. This gives a sense of the authorities acting randomly or may be erratically, because of the pressure from the Supreme Court and that the seriousness to implement the Act is missing in the state.

In Bihar, the implementation also varies from district to district. While implementation is taking place quite well in some districts (as per the data shown), in others it is completely lacking. The cases in the courts and the way they have been disposed off are also different from one district to the other. So if the affi davit reports punitive action in ten cases for example in the entire state, it is noted that all the ten cases are from just three districts. So while the courts in Buxar, Darbhanga and Jehanabad districts have pronounced punitive action, the courts in districts of Siwan, Vaishali, Gaya, Goplaganj and Nalanda have no cases where punitive action has been taken.

In Madhya Pradesh, only a few court cases can be seen and strangely in the one and only case of conviction under Section 22 (one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fi ne of Rs 2,000) so far, the accused person was convicted on January 27, 2011, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, and was granted stay order on imprisonment on the same day by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.

While it is good to see that 67 cases in Rajasthan have resulted in the court giving

a conviction order, it is sad that in 52 cases the convicted persons have been set free under “probation for good conduct“ and not served any punishment. In several cases, the court has released the convicted person after “due admonition” (under the Probations of Offenders Act). The maximum punishment has been of two-year simple imprisonment (SI) with a fi ne of Rs 10,000 in two cases and the least has been one month SI and a fi ne of Rs 1,000. In two cases, the accused was detained till the rising of the court and was only penalised with Rs 1,000 fi ne. This clearly shows that the intent behind the law was not fully realised by the judiciary.

In one of the SSB meetings held on August 31, 2013, in Odisha, it was discussed and decided that the help of the police offi cers will be availed by the inspection team during the course of enforcement and supervision of centres. Help of police for protection during the inspection is fi ne but their involvement in the inspection process should be discouraged.

ABORTION IS LEGAL UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE COUNTRY AND ALL ABORTIONS ARE NOT DONE FOR THE REASON OF SEX SELECTION

IN 52 CASES IN RAJASTHAN THE CONVICTED PERSONS HAVE BEEN SET FREE UNDER “PROBATION FOR GOOD CONDUCT”

HELP OF POLICE FOR PROTECTION DURING THE INSPECTION IS FINE BUT THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE INSPECTION PROCESS SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED

12

INSPECTION & MONITORINGIt is amply clear from the affi davits that the implementation of the Act has picked up only from 2012 onwards and prior to this (since 2001), there were not many actions taken in most states.

The number of inspections by National Inspection and Monitoring Committee (NIMC) and various district authorities has grown up in three-fi ve years and action has been taken on such inspections. Inspections were not a norm or seen as a priority in 2001-2002 by any state and this shows the lack of seriousness in implementing the Act in all these states. The analysis of the affi davits clearly establishes that states started rising to the needs of this issue only after the PIL was fi led in the Supreme Court.

While in Uttar Pradesh, out of 4,837 centres, 1,898 were inspected and 246 suspended after inspection, Rajasthan has carried out 6,533 inspections and sealed 357 registered clinics and 252 machines.

In Haryana, 1,523 centres were registered and 18,946 inspections were conducted from 2001-June 2014. A total of 272 machines have been sealed/seized and 441 registrations have been cancelled or suspended during the same period.

In Chhattisgarh, there were 582 registered centres in the state (by March 2013) and a total of only 17 inspections were carried out in the quarter January-March of 2013 in two of the districts. Subsequently, the number of centres increased to 633 and only 22 inspections were done in the quarter October-December 2014, in two of the districts.

In Gujarat, there are a total 4,506 centres, out of which only 456 ultrasound machines have been sealed after inspections. Many inspections seem to have been done in Punjab—about 3,762 in 2012-13, 4,077 in 2013-14 and 2,598 in 2014-15. Accordingly, 48 registrations have been suspended in 2012-13, 40 in 2013-14 and 23 in 2014-15.

Out of 9,021 centres (registered up to June 2014) in total and 5,988 active ones in Maharashtra, 428 ultrasound machines have been sealed, registration of 152 centres have been cancelled while the registration of 142 centres have been suspended.

Due to lower number of inspections in Madhya Pradesh, the affi davit says that several government orders were issued instructing concerned authorities to inspect at least fi ve centres every week and that 100 per cent inspection should be conducted within three months. But it is not clear from the information given in the affi davit by Madhya Pradesh whether the orders were followed.

In Delhi, fi nalisation and use of common uniform inspection format that objectively captures violations for successful prosecution has been developed. At a meeting of the SSB on February 15, 2012, it was shared that a common format has been shared with all districts along with dos and don’ts of inspection which has also been published in the Delhi Medical Association (DMA) bulletin. During 2012-13, a total of 18 complaints were attended by the State Inspection and Monitoring Committee (SIMC) itself. Further 17 ultrasound machines were sealed and four court cases fi led.

In Bihar, registrations of 212 clinics were cancelled and 139 clinics sealed; 72 clinics were suspended, while 1,449 out of a total 1,621 centres were inspected.

In Himachal Pradesh, there are reports of two cases of machines being suspended on a temporary basis. In its meeting of the SSB on January 16, 2012, and also October 18, 2012, it was recommended that the frequency of inspections should be increased. But 100 per cent inspection of all registered clinics was not done even by 2014.

In Odisha, ten ultrasound machines/centres were sealed after expiry of the registration and court cases were fi led for unauthorised use of such machines. In another fi ve cases, registrations were cancelled and court cases were fi led against unqualifi ed persons operating the machines.

THE AFFIDAVITS CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT STATES STARTED RISING TO THE NEEDS OF THIS ISSUE ONLY AFTER THE PIL IN THE SUPREME COURT WAS FILED

13

CASES IN COURT, PROSECUTION AND CONVICTIONSThe variance seen in simply the number of court cases fi led so far is interesting and speaks volumes about the level of implementation and seriousness shown on this issue at the state level. This is not due to lack of violations as inspections including those done by NIMC reveal violations do exist.

In most of the states, while the cases are in the trial court, the High Court of the state issues a stay order which leads to delay in prosecution. Unless the High Court withdraws the stay order, the trial courts are not able to proceed. This could be a strategy employed by the accused to delay prosecution. All that they do is fi le an appeal in the High Court and seek a stay on the proceedings of the trail court and then forget the case.

Given the fact that the Supreme Court of India has passed directives for speedy trial of the cases, here the High Courts could probably take a serious note of this matter and grant stay of proceedings selectively and only if required.

Many cases in Delhi are delayed because of such issuance of stay order by the High Court. An analysis of the 44 court cases pending in various Delhi courts shows that there are cases which were fi led in 2002 and 2003 and are still pending in the court at the evidence stage. Such long delays of 10-12 years cannot be justifi ed by any legal system aware of the declining child sex ratio in the country.

Most of the cases fi led in Delhi (28 out of 44) are on grounds of non-maintenance of records and the Form-F not being fi lled in properly. Out of these 28 cases, eight are related to both non-registration and non-maintenance. There are cases for instance in Rohini Court (fi led in 2010) where the Form-F is 100 per cent missing and the signature of the patient has been forged.

Delhi has not used the strategies and techniques like decoys used in Haryana. Therefore, cases related to communicating the sex of foetus have not been fi led in Delhi. Haryana has records of 41 cases of sex determination carried out in the centres.

In Delhi, there has been a Steering Committee at the state level, chaired by the State Health Secretary to oversee and guide the progress of the already registered ongoing cases. At many of the State Supervisory Board meetings, it has been emphasised that there needs to be better coordination between the Chief Public Prosecutor and District Appropriate Authority on individual court cases for better follow

up and that regular contact is maintained between the Appropriate Authority, Chief Public Prosecutor and APP. Efforts have also been made by the Appropriate Authority to monitor court cases on a monthly basis. At a SSB meeting held on May 12, 2009, the Minister had advised taking services of lawyers on the lines of rape cases for giving support to the Appropriate Authority at both the state and district level. This was again reiterated at the meeting on August 5, 2010.

In terms of some of the challenges to court cases in Delhi, it has been observed that a major problem with the court cases is the frequent change of the APP, making perusal and follow up very diffi cult.

In Bihar, 159 court cases have been fi led. While 132 cases are pending, punitive action has been taken in seven cases and no action has been taken in other 19 cases. In one case the information is not available. It is also not clear from the affi davit as to what the punitive action is, whether it is conviction, fi ne or something else. A discrepancy was noted pertaining to the fi gure cited for court cases in two different affi davits fi led by Bihar. A total of 183 court cases were reported earlier in the affi davit fi led on April 13, 2015.

In Tamil Nadu, there are only three court cases and all are pending: two are under trial while one is under process. But the affi davit submitted by the Union of India on February 18, 2015, in Supreme Court reports nine court cases with three convictions in the state.

CASES PENDING IN VARIOUS DELHI COURTS SHOW THAT THERE ARE CASES WHICH WERE FILED IN 2002 AND 2003 AND ARE STILL PENDING

HARYANA HAS RECORDS OF 41 CASES OF SEX DETERMINATION CARRIED OUT IN THE CENTRES

14

In Uttar Pradesh, 131 cases have been fi led so far. Activism has led to registration of nine FIRs fi led by a social worker Sanjay Singh in Kanpur district.

Till 2014, seven cases were pending in Chhattisgarh, of which fi ve cases were fi led in 2007 and the remaining two cases were fi led in 2011.

There are a total of 102 court cases fi led from 2001 to September 2014 (12 cases were fi led during April 13-September 14) in Haryana. Out of these, 27 cases are for non-registration, 27 cases for records not maintained and seven cases for advertising which was against the Act. There are 41 cases of sex determination carried out in the centres. Four of the twelve cases fi led during April 2013 to September 2014 have ended in acquittals, seven are pending at different stages and conviction has happened in one case of Dr Anand Prakash (decided on January 28, 2014) giving three years imprisonment and Rs 10,000 fi ne for operating an unregistered ultrasound centre in Sonipat. Of the 54 persons convicted in the state from 2001-June 2014, 33 are doctors. Of the 24 convicted during April 2013-June 2014, 11 are doctors. And of the 33 doctors convicted in the state, in one case conviction was for one day and rigorous imprisonment was for three years in a few cases.

In Himachal Pradesh, there is only one case mentioned in the affi davit in the entire state for non-registration of clinic. The case started on May 28, 2008, and was decided on April 1, 2013, with conviction of one year and a fi ne of Rs 10,000.

The Madhya Pradesh government is conscious of the fact that the number of court cases (18 cases are pending in court) are low and the State Supervisory Board has noted that “this situation is not proper”. There was a suggestion to take services of sensitive advocates in each district to fi le the court cases. One is not sure if this was actually done and whether it was successful or not. There was conviction in one case but the person was acquitted on the same day.

There have been 595 court cases fi led in Rajasthan as stated in the affi davit, out of which charges have been framed in 227 cases and Rajasthan Medical Council (RMC) informed about the charges being

framed in 127 cases. Of this, 67 cases have ended in convictions. Out of the total 595 cases, 529 cases are for non maintenance of records, 57 for communicating the sex of the foetus, and 15 for non registrations. Out of the convictions in 67 cases in Rajasthan, 52 cases have ended in leaving the convicted doctor free for “probation of good conduct” and released in a few cases after “due admonition”. The maximum punishment has been two-years of SI with fi ne of Rs 10,000 in two cases and the least has been one month SI and Rs 1,000 fi ne.

There have been 305 court cases in Gujarat, out of which 154 have been disposed off. In Punjab, there have been 129 court cases out of which 91 have resulted in acquittals and 29 cases have ended in convictions.

Likewise, 496 court cases have been fi led in Maharashtra out of which 155 have been decided leading to convictions in 64 cases and imprisonment of 52 doctors. Penalty has been imposed on 16. In 21 cases of acquittal, the state has fi led appeals against the acquittals.

It is interesting to note that there are 203 cases fi led by the doctors in the High Court of Mumbai against the state, of which there are 84 pending while 119 have been decided. The state has contested 14 cases in Supreme Court where two are still pending.

Odisha has reported 46 court cases in the state and convictions in only three cases. Thirty cases have been fi led for non-maintenance of records and the registrations of those centres were also cancelled. Out of these 46 cases, doctors were convicted in three cases. All three convictions were reported from Jharsuguda district.

THERE WAS CONVICTION IN ONE CASE IN MADHYA PRADESH BUT THE PERSON WAS ACQUITTED ON THE SAME DAY

ALL THREE CONVICTIONS REPORTED IN ODISHA ARE FROM JHARSUGUDA DISTRICT

IN PUNJAB, THERE HAVE BEEN 129 COURT CASES OUT OF WHICH 91 HAVE RESULTED IN ACQUITTALS AND 29 CASES HAVE ENDED IN CONVICTIONS.

15

ACTION BY STATE MEDICAL COUNCILSIt should be noted here that action against a total of 91 medical practitioners has been initiated only by six State Medical Councils (SMC) out of the thirteen reviewed. Affi davits reveal that most of cases are not being reported to the SMC about the charges framed against the doctors and the convictions. And in most cases even if they get the information, they do not act upon it, except in a few cases mentioned below. Affi davits for rest of the states do not reveal the action taken by their SMC.

In Delhi, Delhi Medical Council (DMC) vide its order of October 21, 2014, has removed the name of Dr Raj Singh Tewatia from the register of DMC for fi ve years and has reprimand and punished two doctors for unethical practices detected during inspection. In the case of these two doctors the nature of punishment has not been spelled out in the affi davit.

The Madhya Pradesh Medical Council has cancelled the license of three doctors but in one case, the doctor managed to revoke the cancellation by appealing in the High Court.

The Haryana State Medical Council has been very active and has twelve cases of suspension of registration and cancellation, fi ve of which were suspended/cancelled during April 2013-June 2014. The cancellation has been done for fi ve years in all cases and suspension till disposal of the case. In two cases where the doctors had registered in Uttar Pradesh, letters were sent to Uttar Pradesh Medical Council (UPMC) and subsequently the registrations were suspended. In one of the case, the name of the doctor has been suspended by UPMC after conviction. The medical councils have taken extraordinary steps where registrations have been cancelled by Madhya Pradesh Medical Council (MPMC), Delhi Medical Council (DMC) and Punjab State Medical Council for doctors convicted in Haryana. In six cases, no action could be initiated by Haryana because registration certifi cate of the convicted medical practitioners were not available. In three other cases, letters were sent on the same

date (November 25, 2013) to the Registrar, Medical Council of India (MCI) for suspension/cancellation of medical registration but no action has been taken yet.

The Rajasthan Medical Council has been informed in 127 cases, out of which it has suspended registration of 21 doctors. About 48 cases have not been reported to the RMC due to stay of proceedings by the courts and out of the 67 cases of conviction, the RMC was informed about 32.

The Maharashtra Medical Council has suspended the registrations of 49 doctors and two of the doctors have been removed for fi ve years, while warning letters have been issued to 38 doctors. The Homeopathic Council of the state has also suspended the registration of six doctors, while the Indian Medical Council has also suspended registrations of three doctors from Maharashtra.

The Odisha Council of Medical Registration was reported in all three cases of conviction by the State Appropriate Authority. Subsequently, registrations of all the three doctors were suspended for a period of fi ve years in 2012. However, the action of the Council has been stayed by the High Court of Orissa.

ACTION AGAINST A TOTAL OF 91 MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS HAS BEEN INITIATED ONLY BY SIX STATE MEDICAL COUNCILS OUT OF THE THIRTEEN REVIEWED

ABOUT 48 CASES HAVE NOT BEEN REPORTED TO THE RAJASTHAN MEDICAL COUNCIL DUE TO STAY OF PROCEEDINGS BY THE COURTS

THE REGISTRATIONS OF ALL THE THREE DOCTORS WERE SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS IN 2012. HOWEVER, THE ACTION OF THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN STAYED BY THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

17

A COMPILATION OF DATA ON COURT CASES, INSPECTIONS AND ACTION TAKEN BY STATE MEDICAL COUNCILS

18

Araria

Arwal

Banka

Sheohar

Vaishali

Sitamarhi

Supaul

Siwan

Katihar

Sheikhpura

Purnia

Rohtas

Kishanganj

East

Champaran

Madhepura

Madhubani

West

Champaran

LakhisaraiJehanabad

Darbhanga

BhagalpurNalanda

Nawada

Khagaria

Kaimur

Gaya

Gopalganj

BhojpurBuxar Begusarai

Jamui

SaharsaSamastipurSaran

Patna

Aurangabad

Muzaffarpur

Munger

1 LAKHISARAI 2 BANKA 3 SEOHAR 4 ARWAL 5 SHEIKHPURA

4 5 5 6 9

FIVE DISTRICTS WITH MINIMUM NUMBER OF REGISTERED CENTRES

1 PATNA 2 MUZAFFARPUR 3 DARBHANGA 4 EAST CHAMPARAN

5 WEST CHAMPARAN

339 122 86 79 62

FIVE DISTRICTS WITH MAXIMUM NUMBER OF REGISTERED CENTRES

< 50

51-100

101-200

> 201

NUMBER OF REGISTERED CENTRES

19

BIHAR

MONITORING AND INSPECTION

REGISTRATION OF CENTRESAs per the information shared by the Department of Health, Government of Bihar, in its affi davit submitted in the Supreme Court, in April 2015, a total of 1,621 ultrasound centres have been registered under the PCPNDT Act across the 38 districts of the state. Of the 38 districts, two districts namely Patna (339) and Muzaffarpur (122) have the maximum number of centres registered under the Act, followed by Darbhanga (86), East Champaran (79) and West Champaran (62). On the other hand, the fi ve districts which have less number of centres registered include Lakhisarai (4), Banka (5), Sheohar (5), Arwal (6) and Sheikhpura (9).

DISTRICT-WISE REGISTRATION OF CENTRES

Sl. Districts No. of registered

centres

1 Araria 31

2 Arwal 6

3 Aurangabad 36

4 Banka 5

5 Begusarai 45

6 Bhagalpur 47

7 Bhojpur 36

8 Buxar 15

9 Darbhanga 86

10 Gaya 62

11 Gopalganj 45

12 Jamui 17

13 Jehanabad 14

14 Kaimur 26

15 Katihar 42

16 Khagaria 16

17 Kishanganj 17

18 Lakhisarai 4

19 Madhepura 16

20 Madhubani 43


centres

21 Munger 16

22 Muzaffarpur 122

23 Nalanda 22

24 Nawada 15

25 Patna 339

26 Purnia 61

27 Rohtas 45

28 Saharsa 24

29 Samastipur 40

30 Saran 48

31 Sheikhpura 9

32 Sheohar 5

33 Sitamarhi 18

34 Siwan 55

35 Supaul 19

36 Vaishali 33

37 East Champaran 79

38 West Champaran 62

Total 1,621

Source: Affi davit, Department of Health, Government of Bihar

20

INSPECTIONS OF CENTRESIt appears from the data that inspections by the District Appropriate Authorities were largely carried out in 2013 and a few in 2012 and 2014. The number of inspections cited by the state compared to the number of centres registered appears to be less. In 14 districts, the total number of inspections done is less than the number of centres registered. This means that some of centres were not inspected even once over a period of three years.

DISTRICT-WISE INSPECTIONS

Sl. Districts No. of centres inspected

1 Araria 33

2 Arwal 6

3 Aurangabad 38

4 Banka 5

5 Begusarai 56

6 Bhagalpur 31

7 Bhojpur 40

8 Buxar 38

9 Darbhanga 86

10 Gaya 9

11 Gopalganj 61

12 Jamui 18

13 Jehanabad 12

14 Kaimur 28

15 Katihar 42

16 Khagaria 15

17 Kishanganj 21

18 Lakhisarai 47

19 Madhepura 2

20 Madhubani 27

21 Munger 44

22 Muzaffarpur 113

23 Nalanda 2

24 Nawada 22

25 Patna 276

26 Purnia 51

27 Rohtas 40

28 Saharsa 30

29 Samastipur 25

30 Saran 48

31 Sheikhpura 9

32 Sheohar 5

33 Sitamarhi 12

34 Siwan 56

35 Supaul 25

36 Vaishali 14

37 East Champaran 22

38 West Champaran 40

Total 1,449

Source: Affi davit, Department of Health, Government of Bihar

21

SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATIONThe data on suspension and cancellation of registration in Bihar shows that as on April 25, 2015, registrations of 16 centres granted under the PCPNDT Act were suspended and of 159 centres cancelled. The suspension or cancellation of registration depends on the level of offence committed by the centres and this is a strong indicator for monitoring by the Appropriate Authority in the state.

The next step after the suspension or cancellation is fi ling of cases with the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC). As per the affi davit, however, not all the matters related to suspension and cancellation have been reported to the JMFC in 11 districts.

The districts with maximum cases of suspension/cancellation but minimum number of court cases includes Muzaffarpur where only three court cases have been fi led against 40 cases of cancellation of registration of centres, followed by Purnia where only three court cases have been fi led against the 23 cases of cancellation and suspension. In four districts, no court case has been fi led although registration of the centres have been both suspended and cancelled.

The data given in the affi davit reveals another practice where court cases have been fi led without suspension or cancellation of registration of the centres for violating the provisions of the Act and Rules. This practice has been observed in Gopalganj, Jamui, Jehanabad, Katihar, Lakhisarai, Nawada, Patna, Vaishali, East Champaran and West Champaran districts where 64 court cases have been fi led without any suspension or cancellation.

SEAL/SEIZURE OF ULTRASOUND MACHINESSo far, 104 machines have been sealed/seized under the PCPNDT Act in Bihar of which maximum ultrasound machines were sealed/seized in East Champaran (30), followed by Nalanda (10) district.

The district-wise data on seal/seizure of machines in Bihar also discloses certain strange practices. For instance, registration of none of the centres has been suspended or cancelled in East Champaran, yet 30 cases have been fi led in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM)/First Class Magistrate (FCM). In another instance, the ultrasound machine of only one centre has been sealed/seized in Muzaffarpur district but registration of over 40 centres have been cancelled; and only eight court cases have been fi led. Similarly, the practices related to suspension/cancellation of registration, seal/seizure of machines and fi ling of court cases in other districts too are questionable.

COURT CASES

STATUS OF COURT CASES As per the latest affi davit fi led in September 2015, a total of 159 court cases have been registered in the court of CJM/ FCM under the PCPNDT Act across the 38 districts of Bihar. Out of these, seven cases have reached the conviction stage and 132 cases are pending in different courts, while 19 cases have been closed with no punitive action. The status of the one case fi led in Patna is not known.

*Acquittal here means ‘number of cases decided with no punitive action’

TOTAL COURT CASES

NO. OF CASES DECIDED/CLOSED/DISPOSED OFF

ACQUITTAL* CONVICTION

159 19 7

22

FILING OF COURT CASESIf we look at the fi ling of court cases in each district of Bihar, we fi nd that cases have been fi led in only 23 districts while in the remaining 15 districts no court cases have been registered. The districts are: Araria, Arwal, Banka, Buxar, Gaya, Khagaria, Madhepura, Munger, Rohtas, Saharsa, Samastipur, Saran, Sheikhpura, Sheohar and Sitamarhi. The maximum number of cases have been fi led in East Champaran district (30), followed by Siwan (25) and Gopalganj (16).

DISTRICT-WISE STATUS OF COURT CASES

Sl. Districts Court cases Ongoing/pending

court cases

Conviction

1 Aurangabad 2 2 -

2 Begusarai 10 10 -

3 Bhagalpur 1 1 -

4 Bhojpur 1 1 -

5 Darbhanga 12 4 5

6 East Champaran 30 30 -

7 Gopalganj 16 5 -

8 Jamui 3 3 -

9 Jehanabad 8 5 2

10 Kaimur 1 1 -

11 Katihar 5 5 -

12 Kishanganj 1 1 -

13 Lakhisarai 1 1 -

14 Madhubani 1 1 -

15 Muzaffarpur 8 8 -

16 Nalanda 10 10 -

17 Nawada 1 1 -

18 Patna 9 8 -

19 Purnia 3 3 -

20 Siwan 25 25 -

21 Supaul 1 1 -

22 Vaishali 6 2 -

23 West Champaran 4 4 -

Total 159 132 7

Source: Affi davit fi led by Department of Health, Government of Bihar, in September 2015

District-wise data on court cases suggests that the number of districts with no court case in the state is 15. While the number of districts with fi ve or less court cases is 13 and the number of districts with more than fi ve court cases is only ten. The absence of court cases in a given district does not clearly indicate whether inspections have been or have not been conducted. Similarly, the absence of court cases does not mean that there has been no violation of the Act and Rules in the district.

NO. OF DISTRICTS WITH NO COURT CASE

NO. OF DISTRICTS WITH FIVE OR LESS COURT CASES

NO. OF DISTRICTS WITH MORE THAN FIVE COURT CASES

15 13 10

23

FILING OF COURT CASES IN RECENT YEARSAccording to the information given in the affi davit, there was no court case registered before 2012 in Bihar and all the 159 cases in the state were fi led over a period of three years—from 2012-2014. Maximum number of cases was fi led in 2013. This clearly shows the mounting pressure of the Supreme Court on the state to implement the Act.

ONGOING/PENDING CASESThere are 132 ongoing court cases in different districts of Bihar. Since all these cases were fi led over the period of last three years, it is too early to expect any result. However, the release of 22 centres by the court without any punitive action in different districts puts a question mark on the complaint drafted by the District Appropriate Authorities.

Therefore, what is more important is to know the reasons (offence committed by the centres) why these cases were fi led by the District Appropriate Authorities. Information pertaining to the basis of fi ling court cases has not been shared in the affi davits.

NATURE OF OFFENSEThe nature of offense for cases fi led in Bihar is neither mentioned in the affi davit nor available on the offi cial website.

CONVICTIONAs per the information available, punitive action has been taken by the court in seven cases from Darbhanga (5) and Jehanabad (2) districts. All these seven cases were fi led in 2013. The information given in both the affi davits does not reveal the type of action taken by the courts against the centres. This could further be explored with the District Appropriate Authorities.

ACQUITTALAs per the affi davit fi led in September 2015, a total of 19 centres have been released without any punitive action in Darbhanga (3), Gopalganj (11), Jehanabad (1) and Vaishali (4) districts. The reasons for the acquittal in the affi davits have not been mentioned.

ACTION BY STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL

The affi davit does not talk about the action subsequently taken by the State Appropriate Authority on the seven cases of conviction. We, therefore, do not have any information whether these cases of convictions were reported to the Bihar Council of Medical Registration or not. And if reported, then what action was initiated by the council. This could be further explored with the state.

2012 2013 2014

14 + + =143 2 159TOTAL

24

UTTAR PRADESH

RAJASTHAN

PUNJAB

ODISHA

MAHARASHTRA

MADHYA PRADESH

HIMACHAL PRADESH

HARYANA

GUJARAT

DELHI

CHHATISGARH

BIHAR

REGISTERED CENTRES

UTTA

R PR

ADES

H

RAJA

STHA

N

PUNJ

AB

ODIS

HA

MAH

ARAS

HTRA

MAD

HYA

PRAD

ESH

HIM

ACHA

L PR

ADES

H

HARY

ANA

GUJA

RAT

DELH

I

CHHA

TISG

ARH

BIHA

R15

9**

**As of September 2015

COURT CASES

1,621*

*As of April 2015

25

CASES REPORTED TO SMC

INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE

ACTION AGAINST RMP BY SMC


PENDING ACQUITTAL

CONVICTION

132 19

7

TOTAL CASES

159

26

Balod

Baloda Bazar

BemetaraJanjgir

Jaspur

Kanker

Kawardha

Kondagaon

Korba

Koriya

MahasamundRaipurRajnandgaon

Sukma

Surajpur

Surguja

Mungeli

Narayanpur

Raigarh

Bijapur

Bilaspur

Dantewada

Dhamtari

Durg

Gariyaband

Bastar

Balrampur

1 BIJAPUR 2 NARAYANPUR 3 SURAJPUR 4 GARIYABAND 5 DANTEWADA

1 1 1 2 3


1 RAIPUR 2 DURG 3 BILASPUR 4 RAIGARH 5 KORBA

246 71 69 24 22


* Surguja has the same

number of registered centres

*

< 10

11-50

51-100

> 101


27

CHHATTISGARH


REGISTRATION OF CENTRESAs per the information shared by the Directorate of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, there are a total of 604 centres registered under the PCPNDT Act across its 27 districts (as on September 2015). According to the data, the highest concentration of centres can be seen in Raipur (246), followed by Durg (71) and Bilaspur (69) districts. Twelve districts have centres between 24-10, while in another ten districts, there are eight or less ultrasound centres. In Balrampur and Sukma districts, there are no centres registered under the PCPNDT Act.


Sl. Districts No. of registered centres

1. Balod 10

2. Baloda Bazar 14

3. Balrampur -

4. Bastar 14

5. Bemetara 5

6. Bijapur 1

7. Bilaspur 69

8. Dantewada 3

9. Dhamtari 11

10. Durg 71

11. Gariyaband 2

12. Janjgir 17

13. Jaspur 5

14. Kanker 4

15. Kawardha 13

16. Kondagaon 4

17. Korba 22

18. Koriya 14

19. Mahasamund 11

20. Mungeli 8

21. Narayanpur 1

22. Raigarh 24

23. Raipur 246

24. Rajnandgaon 12

25. Sukma -

26. Surajpur 1

27. Surguja 22

Total 604

28

NEW REGISTRATIONS

If we look at the trend of new registrations in the last three years (2012-2014), it can be seen that the maximum number of centres (109) were registered in the year 2014. A total of 218 centres were registered from 2012-2014, which amounts to over 35 per cent of the total centres registered in the state. Records available on renewal of registration show that a little over 100 centres were renewed in the year 2012 and 2013.

INSPECTIONS OF CENTRES As per the information provided by the Directorate of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, a total of 402 centres were inspected by the Appropriate Authority in the last three years. It appears from the data that the frequency of inspections was accelerated in 2013 and 2014 as compared to the inspections carried out in 2012.

*As per the State Supervisory Board (SSB) meeting held on September 27, 2013

The data does not illustrate if show cause notices were served to the centres in Chhattisgarh. Either the practice of serving show cause notices to the centres has not begun in Chhattisgarh or the record on show cause notice has not been updated at the departmental level.

It may be mentioned that action against any centre can be taken even without serving show cause notice. However, the Appropriate Authority can at any time either on its own or on a complaint made by someone issue a show cause notice to the centre as to why its registration should not be cancelled or suspended for breach of any of the provisions of the PCPNDT Act or Rules.

* Information not available

2012 2013 2014

NO. OF CENTRES INSPECTED

27 158* 217

2012 2013 2014

NO. OF NEW REGISTRATION

50 59 109

2012 2013 2014

NO. OF RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION

44 57 NA*

29

SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATIONRegistrations of four centres were suspended by the Appropriate Authority in 2014 in Chhattisgarh. No such action by the Appropriate Authority was apparent in the previous years—2012 and 2013. It refl ects that an action like this was started late but the state is now gearing up and strengthening the process of monitoring and supervision on ultrasound centres.

SEAL/SEIZURE OF ULTRASOUND MACHINESA total of seven ultrasound machines have been sealed/seized so far by the Appropriate Authority in Chhattisgarh. Sealing of these machines relates to the cases fi led in 2007 and 2011. The centres might have approached the court against the sealing of ultrasound machines by Appropriate Authority and have appealed for its release. The status of sealed/seized machines is not clear but it appears from the data that these seven machines have not yet been released.

COURT CASES

STATUS OF COURT CASESAs of now, a total of seven court cases have been fi led in Chhattisgarh—four in Raipur and three in Bilaspur district. As mentioned in the affi davits fi led in the Supreme Court by the Chhattisgarh Government in November 2014, four cases in 2007 and two cases in 2011 were fi led against the centres for the non-maintenance of records related to ultrasound conducted on pregnant women.

All seven cases, including four cases fi led in 2007 are still pending in the court. As per the minutes of the State Advisory Committee meeting held on January 17, 2014, the members discussed about hiring of a private lawyer which was based on the recommendations of the Centre Supervisory Board meeting held in 2007.

FILING OF COURT CASESThe data suggests that no court case has been fi led in 25 districts of Chhattisgarh since the inception of the PCPNDT Act. There are only two districts where the court cases have been fi led and the maximum number of court cases have been fi led in the state capital Raipur (4), followed by Bilaspur (3). According to Census 2011, Raigarh is the only district in Chhattisgarh where the child sex ratio has gone below 950 girls per 1,000 boys in the 0-6 age group.

TOTAL COURT CASES

NO. OF CASES DECIDED/CLOSED/DISPOSED OFFACQUITTAL CONVICTION

7 0 0

30

CASES FILED IN RECENT YEARSIn Chhattisgarh, not a single case has been fi led in the last three years–2012, 2013 and 2014. All the seven ongoing cases in the state were fi led in the year 2007 and 2011. It is understood that registration of seven centres against whom the cases are pending in the Raipur and Bilaspur court would have been either suspended or cancelled by the Appropriate Authority. Four suspensions/cancellations done in 2014 in the state appear to be for other centres.

ONGOING/PENDING CASES As per the records available, all the seven court cases are ongoing in Chhattisgarh. Out of the four cases fi led in Raipur, two cases are pending since 2007 and another two since 2011. The remaining three cases in Bilaspur are pending in the court since 2011.

NATURE OF OFFENSEThe basis of fi lling all the seven cases in Raipur and Bilaspur is non-maintenance of records related to ultrasound conducted on pregnant women. The burden in cases of non-maintenance of records always shifts to the person conducting ultrasound on pregnant woman. It is up to this person to prove in the court of law that the sex of the foetus was not communicated to the pregnant woman or anyone else.

CONVICTIONSo far there has been no conviction in any of the seven cases fi led in Chhattisgarh.

ACQUITTALAs of now, no one has been acquitted in the cases fi led in Raipur and Bilaspur.

BILASPUR RAIPUR TOTAL

3 4 7

DISTRICT-WISE FILING OF COURT CASES

+ =




25 2 0

31


An order was issued on October 28, 2014, by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Chhattisgarh, directing all District Appropriate Authorities of the state to report to the State Medical Council in respect of charges framed and conviction of doctors under the Act, for necessary action.

Information is not available with us if the charges have been framed in those seven court cases and if the matters have been reported to the Chhattisgarh Medical Council.

3232

REGISTERED CENTRES

UTTA

R PR

ADES

H

RAJA

STHA

N

PUNJ

AB

ODIS

HA

MAH

ARAS

HTRA

MAD

HYA

PRAD

ESH

HIM

ACHA

L PR

ADES

H

HARY

ANA

GUJA

RAT

DELH

I

CHHA

TISG

ARH

BIHA

R

7**

**November 2014

COURT CASES

*September 2015

UTTAR PRADESH

RAJASTHAN

PUNJAB

ODISHA

MAHARASHTRA

MADHYA PRADESH

HIMACHAL PRADESH

HARYANA

GUJARAT

DELHI

CHHATISGARHBIHAR

604*

33 33





PENDING 7

TOTAL CASES

7

34

55 92 97 102 105

FIVE DISTRICTS WITH MINIMUM NUMBER OF REGISTERED CENTRES1 NORTH

EAST2 NORTH 3 SOUTH

WEST4 CENTRAL 5 NEW DELHI

286 188 178 164 144

FIVE DISTRICTS WITH MAXIMUM NUMBER OF REGISTERED CENTRES1 WEST 2 SOUTH EAST 3 SOUTH 4 NORTH

WEST5 SHAHDARA

Central

East

Shahdara

North East

North

South

South West

West

North West

New Delhi

South East

< 50

51-100

101-200

> 201


35

DELHI


REGISTRATION OF CENTRESThe affi davit fi led on September 2014 by the Delhi Government in response to the Supreme Court order does not reveal much pertaining to the implementation of the PCPNDT Act in the state. Hence the Status Reports (2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) of the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Delhi, available on the government website were reviewed to get some relevant data pertaining to inspections and court cases. The information for 2014-15 was provided by the Directorate of Family Welfare, Government of Delhi.

The district-wise break-up of registered centres shows that the three districts with maximum number of registered centres in Delhi are West (286), South East (188) and South (178). The minimum number of centres is registered in North East (55), North (92) and South West (97).

Recently, the Directorate of Family Welfare, Delhi, has informed all the District Appropriate Authorities to register the facilities with ultrasound machine providing veterinary services in their districts.

In Delhi, a total of 1,554 centres were functioning till March 2015 as per the Status Report 2014-15. According to this data, the maximum number of centres were found to be registered in 2011-12.



1. Central 102

2. East 137

3. New Delhi 105

4. North 92

5. North East 55

6. North West 164

7. Shahdara 144

8. South 178

9. South East 188

10. South West 97

11. West 286

12. DDMS* 6

Total 1,554

*Deputy Director Medical Services (DDMS), Headquarter Delhi Area, Delhi Cantt.

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

NO. OF REGISTERED CENTRES

1,605 1,525 1,5541,588

36

INSPECTIONS OF CENTRESThe data on inspections carried out in Delhi in the last four fi nancial years suggests that the number of centres inspected every year is much less than the number of registered centres in the state. This indicates that inspection of all the centres registered under the PCPNDT Act is not being carried out.

Subsequently, 117 show cause notices were served to the centres by the Appropriate Authority in 2011-12, 85 in 2012-13, 38 in 2013-14 and 21 in 2014-15.

SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATIONThe Status Reports on suspension and cancellation of registration in Delhi shows that the registrations granted over the last four fi nancial years under the PCPNDT Act to 525 centres were suspended and cancelled.

The next step after suspension or cancellation of registration is fi ling of cases with the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC). If we compare the total number of suspensions and cancellations of registration (525) with the total number of court cases (84) fi led till 2013-14, we see a lapse in fi ling of court cases in Delhi.

SEAL/SEIZURE OF ULTRASOUND MACHINESA total of 84 ultrasound machines have been sealed in the last four years as mentioned in the Status Reports of Delhi.

Instances of de-sealing of centres (including machines) by the District Appropriate Authority on the advice of District Advisory Committee without any court case being fi led was found in the state. In a reply to a RTI fi led by Dr Mitu Khurana in March 2009, the District Appropriate Authority, West district, declared that three centres were sealed for a period of little over a month and then de-sealed after the centres signed an affi davit and paid a penalty of Rs 20,000 each.

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15


602 754 640448

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

NO. OF SUSPENSION AND CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION

143 207 10174

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

NO. OF MACHINES SEALED/SEIZED

22 33 1316

37

Another reply received under the RTI Act in March 2009 from the offi ce of the District Medical Offi cer (North-West) reveals that the ultrasound machines of 14 centres were de-sealed on the advice of the District Advisory Committee.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the status of sealed ultrasound machines in different parts of Delhi must have changed after sometime as the matters were not taken to the court.

APPEALS HEARD BY THE STATE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITYIn 2011-12, there were 143 cases of suspensions and cancellations, two of which were heard by the Appropriate Authority. Similarly, in 2012-13, out of 207 cases of suspensions and cancellations, 16 appeals were heard. And in 2013-14, four out of 74 cases of suspensions and cancellations were heard by the Appropriate Authority. And fi nally in 2014-15, nine out of 101 cases of suspensions and cancellations were heard by the Appropriate Authority.

The number of appeals made by the centres is quite low as compared to the number of suspensions and cancellations of registrations in Delhi. It could be explored as to why the centres chose not to appear before the Appropriate Authority against the order of suspension and cancellation of their registration under the PCPNDT Act.

COURT CASES

STATUS OF COURT CASESThe Status Report of Delhi shows that a total of 84 court cases have been fi led since the inception of the PCPNDT Act till March 2015. Of these 84 court cases, 51 cases are ongoing in the state. The remaining 26 cases could be of acquittal as no fi gure for dismissal has been mentioned.

There were 44 ongoing/pending cases as per the affi davit fi led in the Supreme Court by the Government of Delhi in the end of 2014.

CASES FILED IN RECENT YEARSAccording to the Status Report, the number of cases fi led in the last three reported years in Delhi has been low. A total of only 19 court cases were fi led from 2012-13 to 2014-15.

As per the Status Report, the maximum number of cases (36) were fi led in 2002-03, followed by seven cases each in 2012-13 and 2014-15. A reply to a RTI fi led by Dr Mitu Khurana reveals that 22 cases were fi led alone in West district of Delhi from 2002-03 to 2014-15. Out of these 22 cases, 11 have been disposed off. This includes three cases in which a fi ne was imposed.

TOTAL COURT CASES


ACQUITTAL CONVICTION

84 26 7

38

ONGOING/PENDING CASES There are a total of 51 ongoing cases in Delhi (till March 2015). The district-wise break-up is available only for 44 ongoing/pending cases in the affi davit. According to the information, most of the cases are ongoing in North-West (10) and West district (12).

Source: Affi davit, Govt. of Delhi

NATURE OF OFFENSEA break-up of the 51 ongoing/pending court cases shows that the cases under Section 23 and 29 are high in Delhi.

Year Court cases fi led

2001-02 6

2002-03 36

2003-04 2

2004-05 4

2005-06 2

2006-07 6

2007-08 -

2008-09 2

2009-10 1

2010-11 3

2011-12 3

2012-13 7

2013-14 5

2014-15 7

Total 84

Districts Ongoing/ pending cases

1 Central 4

2 East 3

3 New Delhi 5

4 North 3

5 North West 10

6 South East 3

7 South West 4

8 West 12

Total 44

Offense under Section Court case

U/s 18, 23, 29(2) 12

U/s 23 7

U/s 4, 29, 23, 25 3

U/s 5(2) & 6 2

U/s 28, 23, 25 10

U/s 6 & 22 & 2(1) 3

U/s 9(1)(3) 2

U/s 4 & 29 4

U/s 3(2), 4 & 29 1

U/s 22 & IT Act 4

U/s 28, (1), 29 1

Alleged sex selective elimination 2

Total 51

39

CONVICTIONAs per the information shared by the Department of Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi during a dialogue with the Health Minister in August 2015 at Delhi Secretariat, there are seven cases of conviction in Delhi. No further information on conviction is available in the affi davit fi led by Delhi in the Supreme Court (September 2014).

ACQUITTALThe Status Report claims a total of 84 cases fi led in Delhi since the inception of the PCPNDT Act till March 2015. Out of these, 51 cases are ongoing in different districts of Delhi and in seven cases, accused have been convicted. So the remaining 26 cases could be of acquittal as no fi gure for dismissal has been mentioned.


The affi davit in general does not have any information as to in how many cases the charges have been farmed and how many of those have been reported to the Delhi Medical Council. But it appears from the affi davit that the practice of reporting the name of the violators (doctors) to the State Medical Council has started in Delhi.

What is also evident from the affi davit fi led by the Delhi Government as per the direction given by the Supreme Court in March 2013 is that names of the doctors were reported to the Delhi Medical Council for incomplete Form-F and non-maintenance of records. Ideally, matters like this should be taken to the court fi rst and then to the Council after the charge is framed against the centre.

According to the information provided in the affi davit, the Appropriate Authority has reported the name of a doctor (against whom the charged was framed) to the Delhi Medical Council for suspension. But the action initiated by the Delhi Medical Council in this case has not been mentioned in the affi davit. A copy of the order issued in October 2012 by the Delhi Medical Council however reveals action taken against a doctor who had agreed to eliminate the female foetus during a sting operation conducted by a television channel. The name of the doctor was removed from the State Medical Registration of Delhi Medical Council for a period of three months under the Indian Medical Council Regulations, 2002. Further, in another case, the Delhi Medical Council in October 2014 suspended Dr Raj Singh from the Council for a period of fi ve years.

4040

UTTAR PRADESH

RAJASTHAN

PUNJAB

ODISHA

MAHARASHTRA

MADHYA PRADESH

HIMACHAL PRADESH

HARYANA

GUJARAT

DELHICHHATISGARH

BIHAR

REGISTERED CENTRES

UTTA

R PR

ADES

H

RAJA

STHA

N

PUNJ

AB

ODIS

HA

MAH

ARAS

HTRA

MAD

HYA

PRAD

ESH

HIM

ACHA

LPRA

DESH

HARY

ANA

GUJA

RAT

DELH

I

CHHA

TISG

ARH

BIHA

R

84*

*2014-15

COURT CASES

1,554*

*2014-15

41 41




2

*Includes disposed off cases

PENDING ACQUITTAL

CONVICTION

51 26*

7

TOTAL CASES

84

43

GUJARAT


REGISTRATION OF CENTRESThe affi davit fi led in December 2014 by Gujarat in response to the Supreme Court order of September 2014, does not reveal much pertaining to the indictors of implementation under the PCPNDT Act in the state.

According to the affi davit, there are 4,566 centres registered under the PCPNDT Act in Gujarat. But as per the information shared by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Gujarat, during the Regional Workshop organised in September 2015, by the State Institute of Health and Family Welfare (SIHFW), Rajasthan, for the Appropriate Authorities in Jaipur, the number of registered centres had gone up to 4,953 by June 2015.

INSPECTIONS OF CENTRESA total of 18 sting operations have been carried out in Gujarat. The maximum number of sting operations was carried out in Ahmedabad (8) district, followed by Surat (5).

AHMEDABAD SURAT

MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STING OPERATIONS

8 5

Sl. Districts No. of sting operations

1. Ahmedabad 8

2. Bhavnagar 1

3. Dahod 1

4. Jamnagar 1

5. Mahesana 1

6. Rajkot 1

7. Surat 5

Total 18

44

SEAL/SEIZURE OF ULTRASOUND MACHINESAs per the data made available in the affi davit, a total of 456 ultrasound machines were sealed in the state till December 2014. However, the data shared during the Regional Workshop held in September 2015 shows that the fi gure of sealed machines has gone up to 461.

COURT CASES

STATUS OF COURT CASESA total of 349 court cases have been fi led in different districts of Gujarat under the PCPNDT Act. Of the total cases fi led, 187 cases have been disposed off with nine cases resulting in conviction and 178 cases resulting in acquittal. Another 162 cases are still pending in various courts of Gujarat.

The data indicates that the number of conviction is very less and the number of disposed off cases, including acquittal cases, is very high. Also, the cases in High Court and Supreme Court have either been disposed off or are pending.

Source: Data shared by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Gujarat, during the Regional Workshop held in Jaipur.

Year No. of ultrasound machines sealed

2004-05 13

2005-06 72

2006-07 59

2007-08 4

2008-09 2

2009-10 6

2010-11 26

2011-12 96

2012-13 69

2013-14 80

2014-15 32

2015-16 (July 15) 2

Total 461

COURT CASES

CASES IN DISTRICT COURTS

CASES IN HIGH COURTS

CASES IN SUPREME COURT

TOTAL

CONVICTION ACQUITTAL ONGOING/PENDING

191

152

5349

9

-

-9

46

131

1178

136

21

4162


45

CONVICTIONThe total number of convictions (9) in the state compared to the total number of disposed off cases (178), is petite. As per the information provided, imprisonment was pronounced in six cases while fi ne ranging from Rs 100-Rs 10,000 was imposed in all the nine cases. The tenure of imprisonment varied from three months to three years.

ACQUITTALThe disposed off cases include the cases of acquittal and conviction. The Department has mentioned disposed off cases as 178 and cited another nine cases as conviction. Therefore, disposed off cases should be read as acquittal. No further information on acquittal is available with us.


We have no information if the cases of conviction (9) have been reported to the Gujarat Medical Council.

AHMEDABAD DAHOD PATAN SURAT VALSAD TOTAL

3 1+ + + + =3 1 1 9

4646

UTTAR PRADESH

RAJASTHAN

PUNJAB

ODISHA

MAHARASHTRA

MADHYA PRADESH

HIMACHAL PRADESH

HARYANA

GUJARATDELHI

CHHATISGARH

BIHAR

REGISTERED CENTRES

UTTA

R PR

ADES

H

RAJA

STHA

N

PUNJ

AB

ODIS

HA

MAH

ARAS

HTRA

MAD

HYA

PRAD

ESH

HIM

ACHA

L PR

ADES

H

HARY

ANA

GUJA

RAT

DELH

I

CHHA

TISG

ARH

BIHA

R

349*

COURT CASES

4,953*

*September 2015

*September 2015

47 47





PENDING ACQUITTAL

CONVICTION

162 178

9

TOTAL CASES

349

48

1 MEWAT 2 KAITHAL 3 FATEHABAD 4 MAHENDRAGARH 5 JHAJJAR

15 34 40 46 50


1 GURGAON 2 FARIDABAD 3 HISAR 4 KARNAL 5 SONIPAT

237 213 119 110 106


Ambala

Gurgaon

Hisar

Jhajjar

Jind

Kaithal

Karnal

Kurukshetra

Mahendragarh

Mewat

Palwal

Panchkula

Panipat

Rewari

Rohtak

Sirsa

Sonipat

Yamunanagar

Bhiwani

Faridabad

Fatehabad

< 50

51-100

101-200

> 201


49

HARYANA


1. REGISTRATION OF CENTRESAs per the information shared by the Director General Health Services, Haryana, 1,715 centres are registered (as on July 8, 2015) under the PCPNDT Act in the state. Of the 21 districts of Haryana, two districts namely Gurgaon (237) and Faridabad (213) have the maximum number of centres registered under the Act, followed by Hisar (119), Karnal (110) and Sonipat (106) which have more than 100 centres each. On the other hand, the fi ve districts which have less number of centres registered include Mewat (15), Kaithal (34), Fatehabad (40), Mahendragarh (46) and Jhajjar (50).



centres

1. Ambala 84

2. Bhiwani 54

3. Faridabad 213

4. Fatehabad 40

5. Gurgaon 237

6. Hisar 119

7. Jhajjar 50

8. Jind 72

9. Kaithal 34

10. Karnal 110

11. Kurukshetra 68

NEW REGISTRATIONS

The number of registrations in Haryana granted in the last three calendar years, 2012, 2013 and 2014, are 100, 105 and 87 respectively. Likewise, 82 registrations were renewed in 2013 and 73 in 2014. But the information as to exactly how many applications were received by the Appropriate Authority for new registration and renewal of registration in the last three years and how many of them were rejected is not available.

INSPECTIONS OF CENTRESThe data on inspections carried out in the last three years (2012-2014) in Haryana suggests that the number of centres inspected each year is much higher than the number of centres registered in the state. This indicates that inspections were carried out on a routine basis and attempts were being made to inspect the centres at least once a year.


2012 2013 2014

100 105 872012 2013 2014


* Information not available

NA* 82 73


centres

12. Mahendragarh 46

13. Mewat 15

14. Palwal 60

15. Panchkula 73

16. Panipat 74

17. Rewari 60

18. Rohtak 65

19. Sirsa 82

20. Sonipat 106

21. Yamunanagar 53

Total 1,715

50

But the information on the number of notices served to the centres by the Appropriate Authority in Haryana is not available. It could thus be assumed that notices must have been served to the centres on account of violations of the Act and Rules.

SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATIONThe data on suspension/cancellation of registration in Haryana suggest that registration of 145 centres granted under the PCPNDT Act was either suspended or cancelled in the last three years. Suspension or cancellation of registration depends on the gravity of the charge against the centres. This is a strong indicator for monitoring and surveillance on the centres by the Appropriate Authority in any state.

The next step after the suspension or cancellation is fi ling of case with the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC). If we compare the total number of suspensions/cancellations (145) in the last three years with the total number of court cases (118) fi led so far, we fi nd a signifi cant gap in fi ling of cases in the court.

As per the affi davit fi led by the Haryana Government in the Supreme Court, a total of 441 registrations have been suspended or cancelled from 2001-2014 (June). This means not all matters of suspension and cancellation were taken to the court of law.

SEAL/SEIZURE OF ULTRASOUND MACHINESSo far, 300 machines have been sealed/seized under the PCPNDT Act in Haryana of which more than 50 per cent (164) machines have been sealed in the last three years 2012 (32); 2013 (86) and 2014 (46).

It is important here to fi nd out whether the cases were fi led with the JMFC in Haryana after the sealing of the ultrasound machines. It is not clear if all the ultrasound machines were sealed on account of violations found or the use of machine was ‘ceased’ temporarily to prevent its use by an unauthorised person.

APPEALS HEARD BY THE STATE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITYIn 2012, there were 46 suspensions/cancellations, nine of which were heard by the State Appropriate Authority (SAA). Similarly, in 2013, out of 37 suspensions/cancellations, 15 appeals were heard. And in 2014, six out of 62 suspensions/cancellations were heard by SAA.

It is clear from the data that the number of appeals heard by the SAA is quite low as compared to the number of suspensions/cancellations of registrations in the last three years in Haryana. It could further be explored as to why these centres chose not to appear before the SAA against the order of suspension/cancellation of

2012 2013 2014


1,924 2,315 2,237

2012 2013 2014

NO. OF SUSPENSION/CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION

46 37 62

51

their registration under the PCPNDT Act, and also if these centres have got a stay order on the action from the High Court and are still operational.

COURT CASES

STATUS OF COURT CASESThe fi rst case in Haryana under the PCPNDT Act was fi led in the year 2001 in Palwal district which had resulted in conviction in 2006. Since then (over a period of 14 years), a total of 118 cases have been fi led in different districts of Haryana under the PCPNDT Act. Out of the 118 cases, 87 cases have either been decided or closed. This includes acquittal in 54 cases and conviction in 33 cases.

The data indicates that the number of acquittal is higher than conviction in Haryana. Furthermore, there is no information whether the appeal was fi led against the acquittal by the concerned Appropriate Authorities.

FILING OF COURT CASESA total of 118 cases (registered under PCPNDT Act since inception) have been fi led in the state. Of the 21 districts of the state, no court case has ever been fi led in one district and there are 12 districts where fi ve or less court cases have been fi led. The number of districts with more than fi ve court cases is eight.

FILING OF COURT CASES IN RECENT YEARSAccording to the information provided, a total of 48 cases were fi led by the Appropriate Authority with the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) from 2012 to 2014 in Haryana. On the other hand, the number of suspension/cancellation of registration of centres for the same period is 145.

TOTAL COURT CASES

NO. OF CASES DECIDED/CLOSED/DISPOSED OFF ONGOING/PENDING CASESACQUITTAL CONVICTION

118 54 32 32




1 12 8

SUSPENSION/CANCELLATION

CASE FILED WITH JMFC

2012 2013 2014

46

20

37

7

62

21

52

If the number of court case is compared with the number of suspension/cancellation of registration of centres, it shows a completely different picture. The fi ling of cases in the court has been low throughout.

ONGOING/PENDING CASES Currently (as on July 8, 2015), there are 32 ongoing court cases in different districts of Haryana. In six districts of the state namely, Mewat, Rohtak, Jind, Panchkula, Hisar and Gurgaon, there is no case against the centre in the court. While another six districts—Kaithal, Yamunanagar, Bhiwani, Palwal and Kurukshetra—have one case each in the court. The maximum number of cases are in Ambala (4) and Faridabad (4) districts.

DISTRICT-WISE ONGOING/PENDING COURT CASES

Sl. Districts Total ongoing/

pending court

cases

1. Ambala 4

2. Bhiwani 1

3. Faridabad 4

4. Fatehabad 2

5. Gurgaon -

6. Hisar -

7. Jhajjar 3

8. Jind -

9. Kaithal 1

10. Karnal 2

11. Kurukshetra 1

Sl. Districts Total ongoing/

pending court

cases

12. Mahendragarh 3

13. Mewat -

14. Palwal 1

15. Panchkula -

16. Panipat 2

17. Rewari 3

18. Rohtak -

19. Sirsa 3

20 Sonipat 1

21. Yamunanagar 1

Total 32

NATURE OF OFFENSEIf we look at the nature of cases, we can see that 30 cases have been fi led for non-registration of the centre under the PCPNDT Act, 35 cases have been fi led for the non-maintenance of records related to pre-natal test, 45 cases have been fi led for communicating the sex of the foetus and the remaining eight cases for advertising pre-conception and pre-natal diagnostic facilities for sex selection. All the cases have been fi led by the state government except in one case where it was fi led directly by a public spirited person against a centre.

It is remarkable to see a higher number of reported cases of communication of sex of foetus. Catching a person on spot is not possible without a vigilant team led by Appropriate Authority. It would be interesting to know about the districts where offence related to communication of the sex of the foetus was reported.

NON-REGISTRATION

NON-MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS

COMMUNICATION OF SEX OF FOETUS

ADVERTISEMENT ABOUT PRE-NATAL/CONCEPTION DIAGNOSTIC FACILITIES FOR SEX SELECTION

TOTAL

30 35 8 11845

53

CONVICTIONThe number of convictions (32) as compared to the number of total cases (118) fi led in Haryana looks promising, which is 28 per cent. The PCPNDT Act calls for both imprisonment and imposition of a fi ne depending on the nature of offence. Therefore, the questions which could probably be raised include: are they undergoing imprisonment or have got a stay order; have their registrations been suspended or cancelled by the Haryana Medical Council; and what is the status of their ultrasound machines post conviction, whether their ultrasound machines have been sealed and seized by the authorities.

According to the information provided, imprisonment was pronounced in 28 cases. On the other side, offence in the case of conviction (32) is apparently not clear. This could be further explored.

The noticeable point is that in all 32 cases of conviction, the order was passed by the trial/district courts, which is appealable in the higher court. It could further be explored whether the convicts have got a stay order from the High Court on the order of conviction.

ACQUITTALThe total number of acquittal in Haryana is 54 and these orders of acquittal were given by the trial court. But no information on the grounds/reasons for acquittal is available.

The next step after the acquittal is that the Appropriate Authority should appeal in the Sessions Court. In the case of Haryana, however, we do not have any data to suggest in how many cases appeals against the acquittals were fi led by the Appropriate Authority.


As per the affi davit fi led by Haryana in response to the Supreme Court order dated September 16, 2014, registration of seven doctors have been cancelled for a period of fi ve years, while the registration of two other doctors have been suspended till the disposal of the court case. Out of these nine cases, registration of one doctor was restored in compliance of ex-parte interim stay order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2014. It should be noted that in three cases action was initiated by Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh medical councils.

The subsequent affi davit submitted in December 2014 in the Supreme Court by Union of India shows action taken in 12 cases by different medical councils which include Haryana (7), Delhi (1), Punjab (1), Madhya Pradesh (1) and Uttar Pradesh (2). Though the medical practitioners were working in Haryana, other medical councils equally showed their willingness to act on the report fi led by the Appropriate Authority of Haryana.

It is not known if all the cases of conviction have been reported to the Haryana Medical Council by the Appropriate Authority or there are still a few that are yet to be reported. Moreover, it is not clear if the doctors in the other eight cases have approached the High Court against the order of the State Medical Council.

5454

UTTAR PRADESH

RAJASTHAN

PUNJAB

ODISHA

MAHARASHTRA

MADHYA PRADESH

HIMACHAL PRADESH

HARYANAGUJARAT

DELHI

CHHATISGARH

BIHAR

REGISTERED CENTRES

UTTA

R PR

ADES

H

RAJA

STHA

N

PUNJ

AB

ODIS

HA

MAH

ARAS

HTRA

MAD

HYA

PRAD

ESH

HIM

ACHA

L PR

ADES

H

HARY

ANA

GUJA

RAT

DELH

I

CHHA

TISG

ARH

BIHA

R

118*

COURT CASES

1,715*

*July 2015

*July 2015

55 55




12*

*December 2014

PENDING ACQUITTAL

CONVICTION

32 54

32

TOTAL CASES

118

56

Bilaspur

Chamba

Hamirpur

Kangra

Kinnaur

Kullu

Lahaul & Spiti

Mandi

Shimla

Una

Solan

Sirmaur

1 KINNAUR 2 LAHAUL & SPITI 3 BILASPUR 4 CHAMBA 5 UNA

6 7 12 14 14


1 KANGRA 2 SHIMLA 3 MANDI 4 SOLAN 5 KULLU

61 40 26 25 21


< 10

11-25

26-50

> 51


57

HIMACHAL PRADESH


REGISTRATION OF CENTRESAs per the information received from the Department of Health Safety and Regulation, Himachal Pradesh, there are 260 centres registered in the state under the PCPNDT Act as on December 31, 2014. The maximum number of centres have been registered in Kangra district (61), followed by Shimla (40), Mandi (26) and Solan (25), while the Kinnaur district has the lowest number of registered centres (6).

NEW REGISTRATION

A total of nine centres were registered in the last three years under the PCPNDT Act in Himachal Pradesh. Apart from this, registration of 41 centres was renewed. But there are no records showing how many of the centres had actually applied for the renewal, and if any of the centres was denied renewal by the Appropriate Authority or is operating under deemed* renewal.

*In the event of failure of the Appropriate Authority to renew the certifi cate of registration or to communicate rejection of application

within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of application, the certifi cate of registration shall be deemed to have been renewed.



1. Bilaspur 12

2. Chamba 14

3. Hamirpur 19

4. Kangra 61

5. Kinnaur 6

6. Kullu 21

7. Lahaul & Spiti 7

8. Mandi 26

9. Shimla 40

10. Sirmaur 15

11. Solan 25

12. Una 14

Total 260


2012 2013 2014

5 2 22012 2013 2014


8 18 15

58

INSPECTIONS OF CENTRESThe data provided by the Department of Health Safety and Regulation, Himachal Pradesh about the centres inspected by the District and State Appropriate Authority in the last three years, indicates that each centre on an average was inspected at least twice. Also, the number of inspections carried out by the authorities since 2012 has increased.

The data on ‘show cause’ notice shows that only one centre was served the notice in 2014 during the inspections by the Appropriate Authority. There could also be a possibility that the authorities during the inspections did not fi nd any violations related to compliances such as non-registration, maintenance of register for pregnant women, fi lling of Form-F, change of place, machine and doctor, qualifi cation of performing doctor, use of portable machines or intimation about the purchase of additional ultrasound machines among others, and hence notices were not served.

SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATIONWhile registration of one centre was suspended, the registration of the other two centres was cancelled by the Appropriate Authority in 2014. The reason for suspension or cancellation of registration included: illegal shifting of ultrasound machines, unregistered centre, alleged sex determination tests and use of portable machines from standalone centres among others. But no such action by the Appropriate Authority was seen in the previous years—2012 and 2013.

SEAL/SEIZURE OF ULTRASOUND MACHINESA total of 13 ultrasound machines were sealed/seized by the authorities in Himachal Pradesh. Use of 10 machines was ‘ceased’ due to non-availability of sonologists, while the other three machines were sealed/seized due to violations of the PCPNDT Act by the centres.

It is believed that the ‘closure’ or ‘suspension’ of use of these 10 ultrasound machines (due to non-availability of sonologists) was done to prevent any use/misuse of machines by any unauthorised person at the centre. This could be appreciated and projected as one of the good practices in the state. Though the present status of these 10 machines is not very clear, the data shows that no machine was released by the authorities till December 31, 2014. So it can be assumed that the permission to use these 10 machines have not been granted to the centres.

It may be noted that the Appropriate Authority can allow the use of these machines on the submission of documentary proof about the appointment of a qualifi ed doctor, followed by physical verifi cation by the Appropriate Authority.

* Use of machines ceased due to non availability of sonologists. ** Machines sealed/seized due to violations under the PCPNDT Act

2012 2013 2014


437 852 732

2012 2013 2014

NO. OF MACHINES SEALED/SEIZED

6* 2* 2*+3**

59

APPEALS HEARD BY THE STATE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITYIt appears from the data that since there was no suspension/cancellation of registration in 2012 and 2013, so none of the centres approached the Appropriate Authority with any appeal. But in 2014, two appeals were made out of the three cases of suspension/cancellation.

COURT CASES

STATUS OF COURT CASES There are only three cases of conviction in Himachal Pradesh. Of the three cases, one had resulted in conviction where a non-MBBS person was operating the ultrasound machine in Una district. A case was fi led against him in 2008 and the order was issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) court in 2013. The other two cases were fi led in March 2015 in Kullu and Shimla districts. The case in Kullu was fi led against a doctor for shifting of an ultrasound machine illegally to an unregistered centre, while the case in Shimla was fi led against a clinic for operating a portable ultrasound machine without having the facility for indoor patients.

FILING OF COURT CASESOf the 12 districts in Himachal Pradesh, no court case has ever been fi led in nine districts since the inception of the PCPNDT Act in the state. The data received from the Department of Health Safety and Regulation, Himachal Pradesh, shows that there have been only three court cases fi led by the Appropriate Authority in the state by June 2015.

TOTAL COURT CASES



3 0 1




9 3 -

60

*December 2014, **June 2015

CASES FILED IN RECENT YEARSOut of the three cases fi led so far in Himachal Pradesh, two of those were fi led in March 2015. But no case was fi led in the calendar year 2014 despite suspension and cancellation of three centres which could be attributed to either lack of evidence or weak monitoring process.

One such case of cancellation of registration was seen in Bilaspur district in September 2014. This was done on the basis of a complaint and a FIR lodged by a patient in May 2014 that her husband and in-laws had forced her to undergo the sex determination test in the said clinic. The DAA had lodged a FIR in the police station following which the ultrasound machine was seized. During the examination, the State Forensic Lab found that the machine did not contain the hard disk. In the meantime, the owner and sonologist fi led a petition in February 2015 and succeeded in getting the ultrasound machine released through ACJM court in May 2015. The state government is now preparing to fi le a petition against the decision of the ACJM court in the higher court.

From the above mentioned case it is clear that not all cases of suspension/cancellation are taken to the court by the Appropriate Authority which should ideally be done before the accused approaches the court and challenges the action of the Appropriate Authority.

ONGOING/PENDING CASES There were only two ongoing court cases in Himachal Pradesh by June 2015. One was in Kullu and another in Shimla. The fi rst case that was fi led in 2008 is now closed. On the Bilaspur case, the state government is planning to fi le a petition in the court.

NATURE OF OFFENSEWhile reviewing the nature of offense related to three court cases, it was found that the cases were fi led on charges of operating unregistered centre, illegal shifting of ultrasound machines to an unregistered place/centre and use of portable machines from a standalone centre.

The case in Una district was fi led in May 2008 before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class against a person who was running an ultrasound and MTP centre in his house without registration under PCPNDT and MTP Act. The case in Kullu was fi led against a medical doctor for shifting of an ultrasound machine illegally from Delhi to an unregistered centre in Kullu. And the case in Shimla was fi led against a clinic for operating a portable ultrasound machine without having the facility for indoor patients.


Sl. Districts No. of registered centres* Court cases**

1 Kinnaur 6 -

2 Lahaul & Spiti 7 -

3 Bilaspur 12 -

4 Chamba 14 -

5 Una 14 1

6 Sirmaur 15 -

7 Hamirpur 19 -

8 Kullu 21 1

9 Solan 25 -

10 Mandi 26 -

11 Shimla 40 1

12 Kangra 61 -

Total 260 3

61

CONVICTIONThere has been only one case of conviction under the PCPNDT Act in Himachal Pradesh. The case was fi led in May 2008 in Una and decided in April 2013 with one year of simple imprisonment and a fi ne of Rs 10,000 under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act.

ACQUITTALAs of now, there is no case of acquittal in Himachal Pradesh as both the cases fi led in Kullu and Shimla are at the trial stage.


We have no information if the cases of conviction (1) have been reported to the Himachal Medical Council.

6262

UTTAR PRADESH

RAJASTHAN

PUNJAB

ODISHA

MAHARASHTRA

MADHYA PRADESH

HIMACHALPRADESH

HARYANA

GUJARAT

DELHI

CHHATISGARH

BIHAR

REGISTERED CENTRES

UTTA

R PR

ADES

H

RAJA

STHA

N

PUNJ

AB

ODIS

HA

MAH

ARAS

HTRA

MAD

HYA

PRAD

ESH

HIM

ACHA

LPR

ADES

H

HARY

ANA

GUJA

RAT

DELH

I

CHHA

TISG

ARH

BIHA

R

3**

**June, 2015

COURT CASES

260*

*December, 2014

63 63





PENDING

ACQUITTAL

CONVICTION

2

0

1

TOTAL CASES

3

65

MADHYA PRADESH


REGISTRATION OF CENTRESThere are a total of 1,459 centres registered in the state (as on September 2014) as per the affi davit fi led in March 2015 by Madhya Pradesh in response to the Supreme Court order. Further information about the district-wise registration of centres is not available either in the affi davit or on the offi cial website of the state.

INSPECTIONS OF CENTRESAccording to the information provided in the affi davit, a total of 2,040 centres have been inspected by the district and state team since inception till the quarter ending September 2014. Out of those 2,040 centres, 25 centres were inspected alone by the state team in Bhopal, Jabalpur, Indore, Rewa, Ratlam, Dewas, Satna and Raisen districts.

The fi gure of inspected centres looks insignifi cant given the time period and the assumption that one centre must be inspected at least twice or thrice a year.

SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATIONThe affi davit reveals that by September 2014, the registrations of 98 centres were either suspended or cancelled by the Appropriate Authorities. No further details on suspensions/cancellations are available with us.

SEAL/SEIZURE OF ULTRASOUND MACHINESAs per the affi davit, action has also been initiated (including seizure of ultrasound machines) against 30 centres for operating without a valid registration certifi cate under the PCPNDT Act.

COURT CASES

1. STATUS OF COURT CASESAs per the information shared by the Directorate of Public Health Services, Madhya Pradesh, during the Regional Workshop organised by the State Institute of health and Family Welfare (SIHFW), Rajasthan, in September 2015, a total of 43 court cases have been fi led in different districts of Madhya Pradesh since the inception of the PCPNDT Act in the state.

TOTAL COURT CASES


ONGOING/PENDING CASES


DISMISSAL

43 0 1 1 41Source: Data shared by the Directorate of Public Health Services, Madhya Pradesh, during the Regional Workshop held in September 2015 at Jaipur

66

The details given in the affi davit as well as the information shared by the Directorate of Public Health Services, Madhya Pradesh, on the 43 cases reveal that 41 cases are still pending. Only one case so far has resulted in conviction.

FILING OF COURT CASESIt is important to highlight that out of the total 51 districts of Madhya Pradesh, court cases have been fi led only in 14 districts. This means that so far no court case has been fi led in the remaining 37 districts of Madhya Pradesh.

Among the districts where cases have been fi led, 11 districts have fi ve or less court cases and the remaining three districts have more than fi ve court cases.


District-wise data suggests that maximum number of cases (11) have been fi led in Bhopal district, followed by Gwalior (10) and Indore (7). The fi gure on fi ling of court cases does not look promising considering the magnitude of the problem in the state.

The very fi rst case of Madhya Pradesh fi led in 2003 in Indore is still pending in the CJM court. Out of the ten cases fi led against the centres in Gwalior, three were fi led by a public spirited person/social activist.

ONGOING/PENDING CASESDistrict-wise break-up of pending cases is available only for 38 cases in the affi davit fi led by Madhya Pradesh.




37 11 3

Sl. Districts Court cases fi led

1 Barwani 1

2 Bhind 3

3. Bhopal 11

4 Dewas 1

5 Gwalior 10

6 Hoshangabad 1

7 Indore 7

8. Khandwa 1

Sl. Districts Pending

1 Barwani 1

2 Bhind 4

3 Bhopal 8

5 Gwalior 11

6 Hoshangabad 1

7 Indore 6

8 Khandwa 1

10 Ratlam 2

11 Satna 2

Sl. Districts Court cases fi led

9 Raisen* 1

10 Ratlam 2

11 Satna 2

12 Sehore* 1

13 Sidhi 1

14 Ujjain 1

Total 43

Sl. Districts Pending

13 Sidhi 1

14 Ujjain 1

12. Sehore* 1

13. Sidhi 1

14. Ujjain 1

Total 38

Note: Pending cases include stayed matters and special leave

petition (SLP)

Source: Affi davit fi led in Supreme Court by Madhya Pradesh

67

NATURE OF OFFENSEThe state in its affi davit has not shared the information regarding the nature of offense for all the court cases. The information is available only for 28 court cases in the affi davit. The data suggests that maximum cases were fi led for non-maintenance of records and violation of other provisions of the Acts and Rules.

It appears from the data of 28 court cases that no case pertaining to communication of the sex of the foetus and advertisement about facilities for sex selection has been reported in the state.

CONVICTIONThe state has witnessed only one case of conviction so far which was fi led in 2004 in Bhopal district and it took nearly six years for the case to reach the stage of conviction. However, the person was acquitted on the same day against which an appeal has been fi led (against acquittal) before the High court. The doctor was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year with a fi ne of Rs 2,000.

ACQUITTALNo case of acquittal has been reported so far in Madhya Pradesh. However, there is a case of dismissal in February 2014 that was fi led in Bhopal in 2007. Revision petition has also been fi led. Information about the nature of offence in this case has not been made available in the affi davit.


As per the data shared by the representative of the Directorate of Public Health Services, Madhya Pradesh, during the Regional Workshop held in September 2015 in Jaipur, medical registration of three doctors has been suspended. While one case is related to conviction, the other two are related to framing of charges.

As per the order copy of the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council, in the only case of conviction in Bhopal, the Medical Council in April 2011 suspended the registration of the convicted doctor for fi ve years and then amended its stand after two days, as the stay was granted on “imprisonment till further orders” by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. The doctor in another case in Indore has challenged the order of suspension before the High Court.

NON-REGISTRATION

TOTAL




VIOLATION OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND RULES

2 13 0 1328

0

68

UTTAR PRADESH

RAJASTHAN

PUNJAB

ODISHA

MAHARASHTRA

MADHYAPRADESH

HIMACHAL PRADESH

HARYANA

GUJARAT

DELHI

CHHATISGARH

BIHAR

REGISTERED CENTRES

UTTA

R PR

ADES

H

RAJA

STHA

N

PUNJ

AB

ODIS

HA

MAH

ARAS

HTRA

MAD

HYA

PRAD

ESH

HIM

ACHA

L PR

ADES

H

HARY

ANA

GUJA

RAT

DELH

I

CHHA

TISG

ARH

BIHA

R

43**

** September 2015

COURT CASES

1,459*

* September 2014

69




3

PENDING

CONVICTION

41

1

TOTAL CASES

43ACQUITTAL

0

70

Akola

Hingoli Jalna

Kolhapur

Latur

Nanded

Nandurbar

Nashik

Osmanabad

Parbhani

Pune

Ratnagiri

Wardha

Nagpur

YeotmalWashim

Thane

Solapur

Sindhudurg

Satara

Sangli

Raigad

Jalgaon

Greater Mumbai*

Gondia

Gadchiroli

Dhule

Chandrapur

Buldana

Bhandara

Beed

Aurangabad

Amarawati

Ahmednagar

1 GADCHIROLI 2 GONDIA 3 HINGOLI 4 BHANDARA 5 WASHIM

16 25 26 37 38


1 GREATER MUMBAI*

2 PUNE 3 THANE 4 NAGPUR 5 NASHIK

1,385 849 655 378 376


< 100

101-500

501-1000

> 1001


71

MAHARASHTRA


REGISTRATION OF CENTRESAs per the affi davit fi led by Maharashtra in response to the Supreme Court order of September 2014, a total of 9,021 sonography centres were registered under the PCPNDT Act by June 2014. Out of those 9,021 centres, 6,907 centres are functional (this includes 847 temporary closed centres) as of June 2015.

One of the most important initiatives taken by the Government of Maharashtra is mapping of the ultrasound machines. According to the information shared by the Consultant, State PCPNDT Cell, during the consultation organised in May 2015 by Girls Count in Mumbai, Machine Registration Certifi cate (MRC) has been allotted for a total of 9,285 ultrasound machines in the state. Other important initiative is registration of sellers/manufacturers of ultrasound machines with the State Appropriate Authority. A total of 97 manufacturers and dealers of ultrasound machines have also been registered with the State Appropriate Authorities (SAA).


1. Ahmednagar 227

2. Akola 85

3. Amarawati 134

4. Aurangabad 265

5. Beed 97

6. Bhandara 37

7. Buldana 72

8. Chandrapur 66

9. Dhule 88

10. Gadchiroli 16

11. Gondia 25

12. Greater Mumbai* 1,385

13. Hingoli 26

14. Jalgaon 165

15. Jalna 52

16. Kolhapur 294

17. Latur 135

18. Nagpur 378

19. Nanded 165

20. Nandurbar 43

21. Nashik 376

22. Osmanabad 67

23. Parbhani 56

24. Pune 849

25. Raigad 204

26. Ratnagiri 79

27. Sangli 188

28. Satara 224


29. Sindhudurg 69

30. Solapur 205

31. Thane 655

32. Wardha 40

33. Washim 38

34. Yeotmal 102

Total 6,907

*Greater Mumbai or Brihanmumbai is a municipal corporation

72

INSPECTIONS OF CENTRESThe decision to conduct a ‘crash inspection drive’ was taken in the State Supervisory Board (SSB) meeting held in May 2013. Under this initiative, a team of offi cials inspected the sonography as well as the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) centres and then took necessary action for fl outing the provisions of the PCPNDT and MTP Acts.

According to the records available with Girls Count, a total of 21,697 centres were inspected from June 2011-June 2013, and action was taken against 697 centres for violating the provisions and Rules of the PCPNDT Act.

What needs to be highlighted here is the fact that MTP centres are also being inspected by the Joint Team that includes police offi cials and the representatives from Revenue and Health Department. Action was initiated against a total of 473 MTP centres during the same period.

SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATIONAs per the information given in the affi davit, registration of 152 centres has been cancelled and registration of 142 centres suspended. A total of 2,772 centres have been permanently closed as a measure to implement the Act.

SEAL/SEIZURE OF ULTRASOUND MACHINESA total of 428 machines have been sealed by Appropriate Authorities for the breach of the provisions of the PCPNDT Act.

APPEALS HEARD BY THE STATE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITYAs per Rule 19(2), a total of 104 appeals have been fi led by the aggrieved persons before the State Appropriate Authority (SAA) in Maharashtra. Of the total appeals fi led, hearing related to 103 matters has been completed. A total of 102 orders were passed by the Appropriate Authority in which 70 appeals made by the owners/doctors were dismissed.

Sl. Municipal

Corporations

No. of registered

centres

1. Ahmednagar 80

2. Akola 68

3. Amarawati 96

4. Aurangabad 211

5. Bhiwandi Nij 30

6. Brihanmumbai 1385

7. Chandrapur 40

8.8. Dhule 60

9. Jalgaon 62

10. Kalyan 116

11. Kolhapur 135

12. Malegaon 38

13. Meera Bhayander 83

14. Nagpur 324

Sl. Municipal

Corporations

No. of registered

centres

15. Nanded 129

16. Nashik 205

17. Navi Mumbai 115

18. Parbhani 38

19. Pimpri Chinchwad 145

20. Pune 448

21. Sangli 92

22. Solapur 99

23. Thane 102

24. Ulhasnagar 28

25. Vasai Virar 89

Total 4,218

73

COURT CASES

STATUS OF COURT CASESAccording to the information provided by the State PCPNDT Cell, Pune, as of September 2015, a total of 536 cases have been lodged against the violators of the PCPNDT Act in various criminal courts. Of the total 536 cases, 234 cases have been decided. This includes acquittal in 119 cases, conviction in 77 cases and dismissal in 38 cases. As compared to other states, Maharashtra has the highest number of convictions in the country.

The data provided by the State PCPNDT Cell, Pune, suggests that among all the districts and municipal corporations in Maharashtra, the maximum number of cases is fi led in Pune corporation (52), followed by Jalgaon (36) and Admednagar district (34).

FILING OF COURT CASESOut of the total 58 districts and corporations, there are only fi ve districts and corporations in Maharashtra where no court case has been registered since the inception of the PCPNDT Act. This includes Bhiwandi Corporation, Vasai Virar Corporation, Chandrapur, Gadchiroli and Sindhudurg district. While 22 districts and corporations in Maharashtra have fi ve or less court cases, and the number of districts and corporations with more than fi ve court cases in Maharashtra is 31.


TOTAL COURT CASES




DISMISSAL

536 119 77 38 302

NO. OF DISTRICTS/CORPORATIONS WITH NO COURT CASE

NO. OF DISTRICTS/CORPORATIONS WITH FIVE OR LESS COURT CASES

NO. OF DISTRICTS/CORPORATIONS WITH MORE THAN FIVE COURT CASES

5 22 31

Sl. Districts Court cases

Total Pending Decided

1 Ahmednagar 34 7 27

2 Akola 2 - 2

3 Amarawati 3 1 2

4 Aurangabad 14 10 4

5 Beed 24 21 3

6 Bhandara 1 - 1

7 Buldana 12 7 5

74



8 Chandrapur - - -

9 Dhule 6 1 5

10 Gadchiroli - - -

11 Gondia 4 4 -

12 Hingoli 11 9 2

13 Jalgaon 36 18 18

14 Jalna 21 16 5

15 Kolhapur 7 3 4

16 Latur 4 2 2

17 Nagpur 6 4 2

18 Nanded 3 1 2

19 Nandurbar 1 1 -

20 Nasik 5 3 2

21 Osmanabad 10 4 6

22 Parbhani 6 6 -

23 Pune 13 9 4

24 Raigad 15 - 15

25 Ratnagiri 6 1 5

26 Sangli 4 - 4

27 Satara 16 6 10

28 Sindhudurg - - -

29 Solapur 14 3 11

30 Thane 5 4 1

31 Wardha 6 - 6

32 Washim 1 1 -

33 Yeotmal 5 3 2

Total 295 145 150

CORPORATION-WISE FILING OF COURT CASES



1 Ahmednagar 1 1 -

2 Akola 11 11 -

3 Amarawati 3 3 -

4 Aurangabad 20 15 5

5 Bhiwandi - - -

6 Brihanmumbai 25 21 4

7 Chandrapur 4 3 1

8 Dhule 2 - 2

9 Jalgaon 19 19 -

10 Kalyan 14 12 2

11 Kolhapur 8 4 4

12 Malegaon 1 1 -

13 Meera Bhayander 5 1 4

14 Nagpur 7 7 -

15 Nanded 17 13 4

16 Nashik 7 7 -

17 Navi Mumbai 21 7 14

75

FILING OF COURT CASES IN RECENT YEARSAn analysis of the year-wise fi ling of court cases reveals that the maximum numbers of cases (199) were fi led in 2011, followed by 131 in 2012. The data suggests that the number of cases fi led in the court has declined from 131 in 2012 to 35 in 2013 and then to 23 in 2014.

ONGOING/PENDING CASES Out of the total cases (536) fi led in Maharashtra, 302 cases are ongoing/pending, which contributes to 56 per cent of the total cases, as of September 2015. The percentage of decided court cases in the state is 44. The following table shows that the maximum number of ongoing/pending cases is in Nasik circle (58), followed by Thane (49) and Pune (47).

NATURE OF OFFENSEThe maximum number of cases in the state has been fi led for non-maintenance of records related to pre-natal test, followed by 63 cases for non-registration of centres and 38 cases for communicating the sex of the foetus.

Sl. Circle Court cases Pending cases Decided cases

1. Akola 37 26 11

2. Aurangabad 73 57 16

3. Kolhapur 26 8 18

4. Latur 58 41 17

5. Nagpur 28 18 10

6. Nasik 112 58 54

7. Pune 111 47 64

8. Thane 91 47 44

Total 536 302 234



18 Parbhani 1 1 -

19 Pimpri Chinchwad 9 4 5

20 Pune 52 23 29

21 Sangli 1 - 1

22 Solapur 7 2 5

23 Thane 4 2 2

24 Ulhasnagar 2 - 2

25 Vasai Virar - - -

Total 241 157 84

UP TO 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015(UP TO OCT 15)

NO. OF COURT CASES

138 199 131 35 23 11

76

Source: State PCPNDT Cell, Pune

CONVICTIONA total of 77 cases of conviction (33 per cent of decided cases) have been witnessed across the 26 districts and corporations of Maharashtra, wherein 82 doctors and fi ve of their relatives have faced imprisonment. On the other hand, there are 27 districts and corporations where no conviction has taken place as of now. However, the number of cases in these 27 districts and corporations range between 1 and 20. The top fi ve districts and corporations with maximum number of conviction in the state include Pune Corp (14), Ahmednagar (8), Solapur (6), Raigad (6) and Osmanabad (5).

ACQUITTALOf the total 234 cases decided in the state of Maharashtra (as of September 2015), the accused have been acquitted in 119 cases which is 50 per cent of the total cases decided in the state. These 119 cases of acquittal have been reported in 29 districts and corporations, whereas no acquittal has been reported in 24 districts. In the remaining fi ve districts and corporations no court case has been fi led. The top fi ve districts and corporations which have maximum number of acquittals include Pune Corporation (15), Ahmednagar (13), Jalgaon (13), Navi Mumbai Corporation (11) and Raigad (8).


The State PCPNDT Cell, Maharashtra, has adopted a ‘single window system’ for reporting the names of the doctors by the District Appropriate Authorities for action to be initiated by the Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC). Till September 2015, a total of 147 cases have been submitted to different medical councils by the State Appropriate Authority (SAA) against the doctors facing conviction and charges under PCPNDT Act. This includes reporting of 124 cases to MMC, 14 to the Council of Indian Medicine and nine to Homeopathy Council by the SAA.

The MMC has suspended the registration of 48 doctors and removed the name of one doctor from the medical register. In addition, warning notices were issued to another 48 doctors. In 20 cases, the MMC could not take necessary action due to acquittal of the doctors. In six cases, action is yet to be taken against the erring doctors.

Of the total 147 cases reported to different medical councils, so far action has been taken only in 58 cases. The Maharashtra Council of Indian Medicine has suspended the license of three doctors while the Homeopathy Council has suspended the license of six doctors.

NON-REGISTRATION

TOTAL

DECOY CASES NON-MAINTENANCE OF RECORD


VIOLATION OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND RULES

63 38 14 1536

420

77

Action taken by Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC) No. of doctors

Registration suspended by MMC 48

Removal of name 01

Warning notices 48

Doctor expired so no action 01

Action not taken because (acquittal 19 + forged document 1) 20

In process 06

Total 124

7878

UTTAR PRADESH

RAJASTHAN

PUNJAB

ODISHA

MAHARASHTRAMADHYA PRADESH

HIMACHAL PRADESH

HARYANA

GUJARAT

DELHI

CHHATISGARH

BIHAR

REGISTERED CENTRES

UTTA

R PR

ADES

H

RAJA

STHA

N

PUNJ

AB

ODIS

HA

MAH

ARAS

HTRA

MAD

HYA

PRAD

ESH

HIM

ACHA

L PR

ADES

H

HARY

ANA

GUJA

RAT

DELH

I

CHHA

TISG

ARH

BIHA

R

536

COURT CASES

9,021*

*June 2014

(6,907 ARE FUNCTIONAL – JUNE 2015)

79 79


147*


58*

*includes Maharashtra Medical Council, Council of Indian Medicine, Homeopathy Council

PENDING

ACQUITTAL

CONVICTION

302

119TOTAL CASES

536

77

80

Angul

Bargarh

Dhenkanal

Ganjam

Jagatsinghpur

Jajpur

Jharsuguda

Koraput

Puri

Sonepur

Sundargarh

Sambalpur

Rayagada

NuapadaNayagarh

Nabarangapur

Mayurbhanj

Malkangiri

Khordha

Keonjhar

Kendrapara

Kandhamal

Kalahandi

Gajapati

Deogarh

Cuttack

Boudh

Bhadrak

Balasore

Balangir

1 BOUDH 2 KANDHAMAL 3 MALKANGIRI 4 NABARANGAPUR 5 DEOGARH

1 2 2 2 3


1 CUTTACK 2 KHORDHA 3 SUNDARGARH 4 SAMBALPUR 5 GANJAM

103 97 58 36 33


< 10

11-50

51-100

> 101


81

ODISHA


REGISTRATION OF CENTRESAccording to the information available on the offi cial website (www.pndtorissa.gov.in) of the state (as of September 2015), there are 780 centres registered under the PCPNDT Act in Odisha.

The latest information on the district-wise break-up of registered centres was not made available to Girls Count. However, the offi cial website (www.pndtorissa.gov.in) of the state gives the break-up of 549 functional centres in Odisha (as on March 31, 2014). According to this information, the maximum number of centres was registered in Cuttack (103), followed by Khordha (97) and Sundargarh (58) districts.

The quarterly report of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India (updated in March 2015), states that the maximum number of centres (114) were registered in 2001-02, followed by 95 in 2010-11, 83 in 2006-07 and 81 in 2014-15.

Year Court cases

2001-02 114

2002-03 80

2003-04 43

2004-05 42

2005-06 9

2006-07 83

2007-08 65

2008-09 61



centres

1 Angul 14

2 Balangir 17

3 Balasore 18

4 Bargarh 14

5 Bhadrak 12

6 Boudh 1

7 Cuttack 103

8 Deogarh 3

9 Dhenkanal 7

10 Gajapati 4

11 Ganjam 33

12 Jagatsinghpur 9

13 Jajpur 11

14 Jharsuguda 9

15 Kalahandi 14

16 Kandhamal 2


centres

17 Kendrapara 10

18 Keonjhar 18

19 Khordha 97

20 Koraput 7

21 Malkangiri 2

22 Mayurbhanj 18

23 Nabarangapur 2

24 Nayagarh 4

25 Nuapada 4

26 Puri 16

27 Rayagada 3

28 Sambalpur 36

29 Sonepur 3

30 Sundargarh 58

Total 549

Source: www.pndtorissa.gov.in

Year Court cases

2009-10 -

2010-11 95

2011-12 28

2012-13 44

2013-14 21

2014-15 81

Total 766

Source: Quarterly Report (MoHFW), Govt. of India

82

INSPECTIONS OF CENTRES

The state of Odisha in its affi davit submitted in the Supreme Court in January 2015 has said that inspection of centres is carried out regularly in the state. As per the information available on the offi cial website (www.pndtorissa.gov.in), a total of 15 inspections were carried out in 2014-15 by the state inspection team. The offi cial website also mentions about 369 monitoring visits made by the District Appropriate Authorities. But information about tenure/year and result of monitoring visits has not been given. Further, this information has not been shared by the state even in the affi davit submitted in the Apex Court.

SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION

The offi cial website of Odisha Government mentions suspension/cancellation of 40 registrations but other details are not shared. We assume that in all 46 court cases, registration of the centres must have been either suspended or cancelled by Appropriate Authorities before fi ling of the cases in the court.

COURT CASES

STATUS OF COURT CASES

As per the affi davit submitted in the Supreme Court in January 2015, there are a total of 46 court cases fi led across 14 districts of Odisha. In the remaining 16 districts, no court case has been fi led under the PCPNDT Act. So far there have been only three convictions and all from Jharsuguda district.

Source: Affi davit, Govt. of Odisha

FILING OF COURT CASES

Out of the total 30 districts, there are 16 districts in Odisha where no court case has been registered. Four districts have more than fi ve court cases and the remaining 10 districts have fi ve or less number of court cases. .


TOTAL COURT CASES




46 - 3 43




16 10 4

83

DISTRICT-WISE BREAK-UP OF COURT CASES

The maximum number of court cases have been fi led in Jharsuguda district (10), followed by Cuttack (9), Khordha (6) and Nayagarh (6).


FILING OF COURT CASES IN RECENT YEARS

When we look at the year-wise number of court cases fi led, we fi nd that though the process of fi ling court case had started in 2002, more than 60 per cent of the cases were fi led after 2011.



A total of 46 court cases have been fi led in different districts of Odisha, out of which three cases have resulted in conviction and the remaining 43 cases are still pending in different courts. Furthermore, four out of six cases fi led in Nayagarh district have been stayed by the High Court. The following table shows the number of pending cases in different districts. In Jagatsighpur district, the only case which was fi led in 2002 is still pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC). The other cases in the state are pending since the last seven-eight years..


1 Angul 3

2 Balangir -

3 Balasore -

4 Bargarh 1

5 Bhadrak -

6 Boudh -

7 Cuttack 9

8 Deogarh -

9 Dhenkanal 2

10 Gajapati -

11 Ganjam 1

12 Jagatsinghpur 1

13 Jajpur -

14 Jharsuguda 10

15 Kalahandi -

Year No. of court cases

2002 1

2003 -

2004 -

2005 -

2006 -

2007 6

2008 10


16 Kandhamal 1

17 Kendrapara 1

18 Keonjhar -

19 Khordha 6

20 Koraput -

21 Malkangiri -

22 Mayurbhanj -

23 Nabarangapur -

24 Nayagarh 6

25 Nuapada -

26 Puri 1

27 Rayagada 1

28 Sambalpur 3

29 Sonepur -

30 Sundargarh -

Total 46

Year No. of court cases

2009 -

2010 -

2011 3

2012 14

2013 7

2014 5

Total 46

Total 46

84


NATURE OF OFFENSEIt appears from the data that most of the cases in Odisha have been fi led for non-maintenance of records, followed by non-registration of centres under the PCPNDT Act. What is also evident is the fact that fi ve cases in Nayagarh district were fi led after an abandoned foetus was found in 2007. Moreover, the cases were lodged by the police against all the ultrasound centres.

Perhaps, cases of this nature should be reopened and scrutinised by the authorities as the PCPNDT Act prohibits only sex selection and has nothing to do with abortions.


Sl. Districts Ongoing/pending cases

1. Angul 3

2. Balangir -

3. Balasore -

4. Bargarh 1

5. Bhadrak -

6. Boudh -

7. Cuttack 9

8. Deogarh -

9. Dhenkanal 2

10. Gajapati -

11. Ganjam 1

12. Jagatsinghpur 1

13. Jajpur -

14. Jharsuguda 7

15. Kalahandi -

16. Kandhamal 1

Sl. Districts Ongoing/pending cases

17. Kendrapara 1

18. Keonjhar -

19. Khordha 6

20. Koraput -

21. Malkangiri -

22. Mayurbhanj -

23. Nabarangapur -

24. Nayagarh 6

25. Nuapada -

26. Puri 1

27. Rayagada 1

28. Sambalpur 3

29. Sonepur -

30. Sundargarh -

Total 43

NON-REGISTRATION

NON-RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION

TOTAL



NOT KNOWN

NON-RENEWAL AND NON-MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS

ABANDONED FOETUS

6 24 7

5 2 146

1

85

CONVICTIONThere are only three cases of conviction under the PCPNDT Act in Odisha and all these three cases are from Jharsuguda district. In all the three cases, the doctors were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for a period of three years and to pay a fi ne of Rs 10,000 and only in default to undergo further SI for a period of six months. All these three cases were fi led in 2008 and it took about four years to reach the stage of conviction.


As per the affi davit fi led by Odisha in response to the Supreme Court order dated September 16, 2014, the State Medical Council has been informed regarding action taken against the accused/convicted medical practitioners.

The State Appropriate Authority in October 2012 had reported the names of the three doctors convicted under the PCPNDT Act to the Registrar, Odisha Council of Medical Registration, and sought the suspension/cancellation of their medical license.

The Council immediately acted on the report and issued a letter to all three convicted doctors asking them to submit the original medical registration certifi cate to the Council within ten days from the date of receipt of the letter. However, as per the information given in the affi davit, this action of the Odisha Council of Medical Registration was stayed by the High Court of Orissa in 2012.

8686

UTTAR PRADESH

RAJASTHAN

PUNJAB

ODISHAMAHARASHTRA

MADHYA PRADESH

HIMACHAL PRADESH

HARYANA

GUJARAT

DELHI

CHHATISGARH

BIHAR

REGISTERED CENTRES

UTTA

R PR

ADES

H

RAJA

STHA

N

PUNJ

AB

ODIS

HAM

AHAR

ASHT

RA

MAD

HYA

PRAD

ESH

HIM

ACHA

L PR

ADES

H

HARY

ANA

GUJA

RAT

DELH

I

CHHA

TISG

ARH

BIHA

R

46**

**January 2015

COURT CASES

780*

*September 2015

87 87


3


3*

*stayed by the High Court of Orrisa in 2012

PENDING

CONVICTION

43

TOTAL CASES

46

3

ACQUITTAL0

88

Amritsar

FatehgarhSahib

Hoshiarpur

Jalandhar

Mansa

Pathankot

PatialaMukatsar

Moga Ludhiana

Ropar

SBS Nagar

(Nawanshahar)

SAS Nagar Mohali

Sangrur

Kapurthala

Gurdaspur

Ferozpur

Fazilka

Faridkot

Bathinda

Barnala

Taran Taran

1 BARNALA 2 MANSA 3 FAZILKA 4 FATEHGARH SAHIB 5 ROPAR

16 16 22 23 23


1 LUDHIANA 2 JALANDHAR 3 AMRITSAR 4 BHATINDA 5 PATIALA

268 246 136 84 68


< 50

51-100

101-200

> 201


89

PUNJAB


REGISTRATION OF CENTRESAccording to the information shared in June 2015 by the State PCPNDT Cell, Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Punjab, there are 1,431 centres registered under the PCPNDT Act in Punjab. Ludhiana (268), Jalandhar (246), Amritsar (136), Bathinda (84) and Patiala (68) are among the top fi ve districts which have the maximum number of centres registered in the state. The fi ve districts having the minimum number of centres registered include Barnala (16), Mansa (16), Fazilka (22), Fatehgarh Sahib (23) and Ropar (23) districts.

INSPECTIONS OF CENTRESThe data on inspections carried out till the month of June 2015 in Punjab suggests that not all the centres have been inspected by the Appropriate Authority. This is evident from the fact that the total number of centres inspected in the state is 1,027, while the number of centres registered is 1,431. In two of the districts, namely Pathankot and SBS Nagar (Nawanshahar), the number of centres inspected is equal to the number of centres registered. On the other hand, in Patiala and Ropar, the number of centres inspected is a little higher than the number of centres registered.



centres

1 Amritsar 136

2 Barnala 16

3 Bathinda 84

4 Faridkot 30

5 Fatehgarh Sahib 23

6 Fazilka 22

7 Ferozpur 32

8 Gurdaspur 63

9 Hoshiarpur 67

10 Jalandhar 246

11 Kapurthala 41

12 Ludhiana 268


centres

13 Mansa 16

14 Moga 55

15 Mukatsar 46

16 Pathankot 32

17 Patiala 68

18 Ropar 23

19 Sangrur 52

20 SAS Nagar Mohali 59

21 SBS Nagar

(Nawanshahar)

28

22 Taran Taran 24

Total 1,431

90

SUSPENSION AND CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATIONThe data received from the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, on suspension and cancellation of registrations suggests that till June 2015 the registration of 877 centres were suspended and cancelled. In Punjab, the total number of cancellation (91) is quite less in comparison to the suspension (786) of centres. This indicates that the registration of centres has been temporarily suspended by the District Appropriate Authority. If the total number of 877 suspensions/cancellations is compared with the total number of court cases (132) fi led by June 2015, we can see a signifi cant gap.

COURT CASES

STATUS OF COURT CASESAs per the data provided by the State PCPNDT Cell, Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Punjab, a total of 132 cases have been fi led in the state since the inception of the PCPNDT Act till June 2015. This includes acquittal in 90 cases and conviction in 30 cases. Out of the 30 cases of conviction, in 14 cases, the persons were acquitted/discharged by the Sessions Judge/High Court.

FILING OF COURT CASESOut of the 22 districts in the state, no court case has ever been fi led in two districts, namely Fazilka and Pathankot. There are 12 districts where fi ve or less court cases have been fi led. The number of districts with more than fi ve court cases is eight.

DISTRICT-WISE INSPECTION OF CENTRES

Sl. Districts No. of centres

inspected

1 Amritsar 100

2 Barnala 11

3 Bathinda 74

4 Faridkot 21

5 Fatehgarh Sahib 22

6 Fazilka 20

7 Ferozpur 16

8 Gurdaspur 59

9 Hoshiarpur 66

10 Jalandhar 130

11 Kapurthala 26

12 Ludhiana 140

Sl. Districts No. of centres

inspected

13 Mansa 15

14 Moga 41

15 Mukatsar 45

16 Pathankot 32

17 Patiala 72

18 Ropar 26

19 Sangrur 49


21 SBS Nagar

(Nawanshahar)

28

22 Taran Taran 16

Total 1,027

TOTAL COURT CASES




132 90 30 12

91

*Another offi cial document titled ‘details of complaints fi led in the court/FIR’ shows two cases fi led in Pathankot district.

According to the data provided on district-wise court cases, the maximum number of cases have been fi led in Bathinda (12), followed by Patiala (11), Jalandhar (11), Amritsar (11) and Ludhiana (10) districts.

Note: *The above table shows eight cases fi led in Gurdaspur but another document of the Directorate shows six cases fi led. Similarly, this

table does not show any case fi led in Pathankot, whereas we found two cases mentioned in another document received from the State

PCPNDT Cell.

FILING OF COURT CASES IN RECENT YEARSAccording to the information provided, in the fi nancial year 2012-13 and 2014-15, a total of 13 cases were fi led in the state by the Appropriate Authority with the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC). The number of suspension/cancellation of registration of centres for the same period is 203. It shows that the fi ling of cases in the court is low throughout Punjab.




2* 12 8


1 Amritsar 11

2 Barnala 2

3 Bathinda 12

4 Faridkot 6

5 Fatehgarh Sahib 7

6 Fazilka 0

7 Ferozpur 3

8 Gurdaspur 8*

9 Hoshiarpur 4

10 Jalandhar 11

11 Kapurthala 5

12 Ludhiana 10


13 Mansa 2

14 Moga 3

15 Mukatsar 3

16 Pathankot 0*

17 Patiala 11

18 Ropar 6

19 Sangrur 9


21 SBS Nagar

(Nawanshahar)

7

22 Taran Taran 7

Total 132

SUSPENSION/CANCELLATION

CASES FILED

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

585392

544

92

ONGOING/PENDING CASESAccording to the information received from the State PCPNDT Cell, Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, a total of 12 cases are ongoing/pending in Punjab (June 2015). Out of these pending cases, Amritsar has a case pending since 2002, followed by Bathinda (2005) and Jalandhar (2008).

As per the information, the case in Amritsar was dismissed in 2008 but the accused had fi led an appeal demanding compensation for the loss incurred due to non-functioning of the ultrasound machine. Likewise, the Bhatinda and Jalandhar cases now pending in the High Court, are about alleged sex determination. Other cases are pending for the last four years.

NATURE OF OFFENSEIf we look at the nature of offense, we can see that 18 cases have been fi led for non-registration of the centres under the PCPNDT Act; 38 cases have been fi led for the non-maintenance of records related to pre-natal test; 21 cases have been fi led for communicating the sex of foetus; ten for sex selective elimination and the remaining six cases for advertising pre-conception and pre-natal diagnostic facilities for sex selection.

The State PCPNDT Cell has put 36 cases under the ‘miscellaneous’ category. However, on reviewing the details of these cases, we found that many of the cases (14) deal with offences related to non-registration of centres, poor record keeping, unqualifi ed person operating the machine, use of additional machines without permission and shifting of ultrasound machines without permission.

Sl. Districts Ongoing/pending cases Pending since

1 Amritsar 2 2002 & 2013

2 Bathinda 1 2005

3 Fatehgarh Sahib 1 2012

4 Gurdaspur 1 2011

5 Hoshiarpur 1 2015

6 Jalandhar 1 2008

7 Moga 1 2013

8 Patiala 2 2013 & 2014

9 Ropar 1 2014

10 Sangrur 1 2015

Total 12

NON-REGISTRATION

TOTAL 132

MISCELLANEOUS



REASONS NOT KNOWN

SEX SELECTIVE ELIMINATION

18 38 10

6 36 3

21ADVERTISEMENT ABOUT PRE-NATAL/CONCEPTION DIAGNOSTIC FACILITIES FOR SEX SELECTION

93

CONVICTIONThe number of convictions (30) compared to the number of cases (132) fi led in Punjab is only a little over 22 per cent. However, out of these 30 cases of convictions, the accused have been acquitted/discharged by the Sessions Judge/High Court in 14 cases.

Of the remaining 16 cases, in fi ve of the cases, the accused were only fi ned. In two cases, Rs 1,000 was fi ned, in one case Rs 20,000 was fi ned and in another two cases, the accused were released with a probation bond of Rs 10,000 and Rs, 20,000 respectively for a period of one year. The imprisonment period for the remaining 11 cases varied from one month to 10 years.

ACQUITTALOut of total 132 cases, the accused were acquitted in 90 cases. It is important to mention here that in all the cases fi led in Taran Taran (7), SBS Nagar (7) and Kapurthala (5) districts, the accused have been acquitted.

On the other hand, in fi ve out of eleven cases in Amritsar, six out of twelve cases in Bathinda and seven out of eleven cases in Jalandhar, eight out of ten cases in Ludhiana and eight out of eleven cases in Patiala, the accused have been acquitted. These are the districts having the maximum number of court cases fi led in the state.


As per the information shared by the Punjab Medical Council (PMC) with the Voluntary Health Association of Punjab (VHAP) in September 2015, name of 27 doctors were reported to the Punjab Medical Council (PMC) by the concerned District Appropriate Authorities. However, no information is available on the nature of action taken by the PMC against these 27 doctors. Out of these 27 doctors, we found three of them also having registrations in Haryana. Due to limited information shared by the PMC, it is not clear whether all the cases of convictions were reported to the PMC and what was the nature of action taken subsequently.

9494

UTTAR PRADESH

RAJASTHAN

PUNJABODISHA

MAHARASHTRA

MADHYA PRADESH

HIMACHAL PRADESH

HARYANA

GUJARAT

DELHI

CHHATISGARH

BIHAR

REGISTERED CENTRES

UTTA

R PR

ADES

H

RAJA

STHA

N

PUNJ

ABODIS

HA

MAH

ARAS

HTRA

MAD

HYA

PRAD

ESH

HIM

ACHA

L PR

ADES

H

HARY

ANA

GUJA

RAT

DELH

I

CHHA

TISG

ARH

BIHA

R

132*

COURT CASES

1,431*

*June 2015

95 95


27*



*As of September 2015

PENDING

ACQUITTAL

CONVICTION

12

90TOTAL CASES

13230

96

Dausa

Dungarpur

Rajsamand

Udaipur

Tonk Sawai

Madhopur

Pratapgarh

Pali

Nagaur

Kota

Karauli

Jodhpur

Jhunjhunu

Jhalawar

Jalore

Jaisalmer

Jaipur (I+II)

Hanumangarh

Dholpur

Sri Ganganagar

Sirohi

Sikar

Churu

Chittorgarh

Bundi

Bikaner

Bhilwara

Bharatpur

Baran

Banswara

Badmer

Alwar

Ajmer

1 PRATAPGARH 2 JAISALMER 3 DUNGARPUR 4 RAJSAMAND 5 DHOLPUR

7 10 13 15 17


1 JAIPUR (I+II) 2 JODHPUR 3 KOTA 4 UDAIPUR 5 SIKAR

739 160 124 104 104


< 50

51-100

101-200

> 201


97

RAJASTHAN


REGISTRATION OF CENTRESAccording to the data made available to Girls Count by the Directorate of Medical Health and Family Welfare Services, State PCPNDT Cell, Government of Rajasthan, as of June 2015, there are 2,411 centres registered under the PCPNDT Act across the 35 districts of the state. The maximum numbers of centres have been registered in Jaipur-I (512) and Jaipur-II (227), followed by Jodhpur (160), Kota (124), Udaipur (104), Sikar (104) and Ajmer (104) districts.

On the other hand, Pratapgarh (7), Jaisalmer (10), Dungarpur (13), Rajsamand (15) and Dholpur (17) districts have the minimum number of registered centres in the state.

INSPECTIONS OF CENTRES A total of 7,153 inspections have been carried out since the inception of the PCPNDT Act by the State PCPNDT Cell and the District Appropriate Authorities in Rajasthan. The maximum number of inspections have been carried out in Jhunjhunu (705), followed by Sri Ganganagar (425), Churu (385), Bharatpur (340) and Jaipur-II (327) districts.



1 Ajmer 104

2 Alwar 64

3 Badmer 43

4 Banswara 19

5 Baran 34

6 Bharatpur 55

7 Bhilwara 60

8 Bikaner 83

9 Bundi 18

10 Chittorgarh 36

11 Churu 52

12 Dausa 45

13 Dholpur 17

14 Dungarpur 13

15 Hanumangarh 42

16 Jaipur (I+II) 739

17 Jaisalmer 10

18 Jalore 40


19 Jhalawar 51

20 Jhunjhunu 70

21 Jodhpur 160

22 Karauli 22

23 Kota 124

24 Nagaur 71

25 Pali 49

26 Pratapgarh 7

27 Rajsamand 15

28 Sawai Madhopur 36

29 Sikar 104

30 Sirohi 35

31 Sri Ganganagar 53

32 Tonk 35

33 Udaipur 104

34 State level 1

Total 2,411

Sl. Districts No. of inspections No. of registered centres

1 Bharatpur 340 55

2 Churu 385 52

3 Jaipur-II 327 227

4 Jhunjhunu 705 70

5 Sri Ganganagar 425 53

98

On the other hand, the districts with the lowest number of inspections done include Alwar (61), Jaisalmer (82), Bundi (92), Bikaner (103), Karauli (110) and Rajsamand (110).

The role of State PCPNDT Cell is very much evident in the total inspections done. The State PCPNDT Cell has separately done 195 inspections in different districts. We, however, do not see any clear pattern or linkage among the number of inspections done and the number of registered centres. For instance, there is a huge difference in the number of inspections done in Alwar (61) and Jhunjhunu (705) districts in spite of the fact that Alwar has more than 100 registered centres.

SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATIONRegistrations of at least 560 centres have either been suspended or cancelled in Rajasthan since the inception of the PCPNDT Act. The number of cancellations (422) is higher than the number of suspensions (181) in Rajasthan. This includes suspensions/cancellations of 98 registrations by the State PCPNDT Cell alone. However, we fi nd a signifi cant gap between the number of suspensions/cancellations (560) done and the number of cases (620) fi led in the court.

There are districts such as Ajmer, Bhilwara, Jaipur-I, Nagaur and Pali among others where all the cases have not been taken to the court after the cancellation of registration. The data also shows that in districts like Bharatpur, Jaisalmer, Jalore and Sirohi, cases have been fi led in the court but the registration of the centres under the PCPNDT Act have not been cancelled.

The following table shows the fi ve districts where the maximum number of suspensions/cancellations has been reported in the state. The table also shows the number of total cases fi led in the court in these districts.

What is also noteworthy in Rajasthan is that the application of 75 centres submitted for renewal of registration under the Act has been rejected. An application is rejected when the Appropriate Authority is satisfi ed that the applicant has not complied with the requirements of the provisions of the Act and Rules.

SEAL/SEIZURE OF ULTRASOUND MACHINESAs per the data made available, a total of 422 ultrasound machines/scanners have been sealed/seized since the inception of the PCPNDT Act in Rajasthan. This includes seal/seizure of 115 ultrasound machines/scanners by the State PCPNDT Cell alone. However, there is no information whether these machines were sealed for violations under the PCPNDT Act or some of those were sealed as a precautionary measure in the absence of an authorised person to operate it.

Sl. Districts No. of inspections No. of registered centres

1 Alwar 61 104

2 Bikaner 103 83

3 Bundi 92 18

4 Jaisalmer 82 10

5 Karauli 110 22

6 Rajsamand 110 15

Sl. District Suspension Cancellation Court cases fi led

1 Ajmer 5 24 11

2 Jaipur I 9 61 42

3 Jaipur II 10 20 22

4 Jhunjhunu 19 15 15

5 Kota 4 26 32

99

The following table shows the number of court cases fi led by the respective District Appropriate Authorities in the fi ve districts where the maximum number of ultrasound machines have been sealed/seized.

COURT CASES

STATUS OF COURT CASESAs per the information provided by the Directorate of Medical Health and Family Welfare Services, State PCPNDT Cell, Rajasthan, as of June 2015, a total of 620 court cases have been fi led in Rajasthan, the highest in the country. Though the fi rst case against a centre was fi led in 2005, the process of fi ling court cases gained momentum from 2009 onwards. The number of conviction cases in Rajasthan looks promising compared to the total number of disposed off cases.

The State PCPNDT Cell, Rajasthan, has received a total of 506 complaints related to ultrasound centres from people. These complaints have been received through the website www.hamaribeti.nic.in (279), the toll free number (54) and other sources (173).

FILING OF COURT CASESThe following table suggests that many districts (28) in Rajasthan have more than fi ve cases fi led in the court. There are only two districts, namely Pratapgarh and Rajasmand where no court case has been fi led so far. In another four districts, the number of court cases is fi ve or less.


The state PCPNDT Cell has alone fi led 105 court cases in different districts of Rajasthan under the PCPNDT Act. It is important to highlight here that the State of Rajasthan has fi led 23 court cases against the suppliers/dealers of ultrasound machines for selling machines to unregistered centres functioning in different districts.

Sl. Districts No. of sealed/seized ultrasound

machines/scanners

1 Bikaner 24

2 Jhalawar 22

3 Jhunjhunu 22

TOTAL COURT CASES



620 75 96

Sl. Districts No. of sealed/seized ultrasound

machines/scanners

4 Jodhpur 17

5 Nagaur 20




2 4 28

100

The maximum number of court cases fi led by the District Appropriate Authority is found in Sri Ganganagar district (51), followed by Jaipur I (42), Udaipur (39), Hanumangarh (35) and Kota (32). There are only two districts, namely Pratapgarh and Rajsamand, where no court case has been fi led so far.

ONGOING/PENDING COURT CASESIf the number of decided/closed cases (171) is deducted from the total number of court cases (620) fi led, then we get the fi gure of 449 which could be ongoing/pending court cases in Rajasthan. This is because no case pertaining to dismissal has been mentioned.

NATURE OF OFFENSEA total of 15 cases have been fi led for non-registration of centres under the PCPNDT Act in Rajasthan, while a large number of cases (544) are for the non-maintenance of records related to pre-natal tests. Likewise, 61 cases have been fi led for communicating the sex of the foetus.

NON-REGISTRATION




TOTAL

15 544 0 62061

Sl. Districts No. of court

cases fi led

1 Ajmer 11

2 Alwar 6

3 Badmer 24

4 Banswara 10

5 Baran 29

6 Bharatpur 8

7 Bhilwara 8

8 Bikaner 3

9 Bundi 18

10 Chittorgarh 7

11 Churu 3

12 Dausa 15

13 Dholpur 7

14 Dungarpur 7

15 Hanumangarh 35

16 Jaipur I 42

17 Jaipur II 22

18 Jaisalmer 3

19 Jalore 14

Sl. Districts No. of court

cases fi led

20 Jhalawar 22

21 Jhunjhunu 15

22 Jodhpur 11

23 Karauli 6

24 Kota 32

25 Nagaur 7

26 Pali 4

27 Pratapgarh -

28 Rajsamand -

29 Sawai Madhopur 10

30 Sikar 6

31 Sirohi 30

32 Sri Ganganagar 51

33 Tonk 8

34 Udaipur 39

35 State Cell 105

36 Complaint with PIR 1

37 Complaint without PIR 1

Total 620

101

There is no case pertaining to advertisements about facilities for sex selection. A high number of cases for non-maintenance of records followed by cases fi led on the basis of communication of the sex of foetus, indicates that there is strong monitoring on centres by the District and State Appropriate Authority in the state.

CONVICTIONThere have been 96 convictions in Rajasthan as per the latest information provided by the Directorate of Medical Health and Family Welfare Services, State PCPNDT Cell, Rajasthan. Division-wise break-up of data on conviction suggests that maximum number of convictions have taken place in Kota division (60), followed by Bharatpur (13) and Jaipur (11). In the remaining four divisions—Ajmer, Bikaner, Jodhpur and Udaipur—only 12 convictions have taken place.

Rajasthan in its affi davit has provided details about 67 cases of convictions. According to the information, the accused in 52 cases of convictions were released under the Probation Act 1958 after due admonition. In only 14 cases, we found imprisonment ranging from one month to two years and a fi ne ranging from Rs 1,000-Rs 5,000. There is no information available about the remaining one case.

DISTRICT-WISE CONVICTIONS

Source: Affi davit fi led by Rajasthan

ACQUITTALIn 75 cases, the accused have been acquitted by the courts in Rajasthan, but there is no information regarding the nature of charges framed in these cases. However, it can be assumed that ignorance about the serious offences during the inspections along with poor drafting of complaints could be the reason for these acquittals.


Since the inception of the PCPNDT Act, the Rajasthan Medical Council (RMC) has suspended the registration of doctors in 21 cases. Information is not available on how many cases have actually been reported to the RMC by the State PCPNDT Cell, Rajasthan.

There are a total of 96 cases of convictions in the state. Therefore, it is assumed that the number of cases reported to the RMC should not be less than 96.

Sl. Divisions No. of convictions

1 Ajmer 4

2 Bharatpur 13

3 Bikaner 2

4 Jaipur 11

Sl. Divisions No. of convictions

5 Jodhpur 3

6 Kota 60

7 Udaipur 3

Total 96

Sl. Districts No. of convictions

1 Ajmer 2

2 Baran 13

3 Bhartpur 1

4 Bundi 4

5 Dholpur 4

6 Jhalawar 5

7 Jodhpur 2

8 Karauli 1

Sl. Districts No. of convictions

9 Kota 18

10 Nagaur 1

11 Sawai Madhopur 4

12 Sri Ganganagar 1

13 Tonk 1

14 Udaipur 3

15 State level 7

Total 67

102102

UTTAR PRADESH

RAJASTHANPUNJAB

ODISHA

MAHARASHTRA

MADHYA PRADESH

HIMACHAL PRADESH

HARYANA

GUJARAT

DELHI

CHHATISGARH

BIHAR

REGISTERED CENTRES

UTTA

R PR

ADES

H

RAJA

STHA

NPU

NJAB

ODIS

HA

MAH

ARAS

HTRA

MAD

HYA

PRAD

ESH

HIM

ACHA

L PR

ADES

H

HARY

ANA

GUJA

RAT

DELH

I

CHHA

TISG

ARH

BIHA

R

620*

COURT CASES

2,411*

*As of June 2015

*As of June 2015

103 103




21

PENDING

ACQUITTAL

CONVICTION

449

75

TOTAL CASES

62096

104

Ambedkar

Nagar

Allahabad

Banda

Chitrakoot

Aligarh

Mathura

Azamgarh

Maharajganj

Kushinagar

Gorakhpur

Deoria

MauBallia

Aurraya

Ferozabad

Amroha

Buland

-shaher

Amethi

Sambhal

Shamli

Bhadohi

Jhansi

Jalaun

HamirpurFatehpur

Raebareli

UnnaoLucknow

Barabanki

Sitapur

Hardoi

Farrukh

-abad

Kannauj Gonda

Kanpur

Dehat

Kanpur

Nagar

Mahoba

Hathras

Siddharth

Nagar

BastiFaizabad

Sultanpur

Pratapgarh

KaushambiJaunpur

Varanasi

Mirzapur Chandauli

Ghazipur

Sonebhadra

Lalitpur

Sant Kabir

NagarMainpuri

Etawah

Srawasti

Bahraich

Pilibhit

Shahjah

-anpur

Bareilly

Badaun

Rampur

BijnaurMuzaffarnagar

Baghpat Meerut

GhaziabadHapur

Gautam Budh

Nagar

Saharanpur

Moradabad

Lakhimpur

Kheri

Balrampur

Agra

Etah

Kashi Ram

Nagar

1 CHITRAKOOT 2 MAHOBA 3 SRAWASTI 4 AURRAYA 5 KANPUR DEHAT

3 3 3 8 9


1 LUCKNOW 2 ALLAHABAD 3 AGRA 4 GHAZIABAD 5 GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

480 327 287 259 224


< 100

101-200

201 - 400

> 401


105

Sl. DistrictsTotal no. of Registered Centres

1 Agra 287

2 Aligarh 130

3 Allahabad 327

4 Ambedkar Nagar 21

5 Amethi 21

6 Amroha 31

7 Aurraya 8

8 Azamgarh 71

9 Badaun 29

10 Baghpat 34

11 Bahraich 31

12 Ballia 27

13 Balrampur 22

14 Banda 14

15 Barabanki 32

16 Bareilly 147

17 Basti 32

18 Bhadohi 30

19 Bijnaur 94

20 Bulandshaher 67

21 Chandauli 25

22 Chitrakoot 3

23 Deoria 38

24 Etah 34

25 Etawah 24

26 Faizabad 38

27 Farrukhabad 45

28 Fatehpur 13

29 Ferozabad 40

30 Gautam Budh Nagar 224

31 Ghaziabad 259

32 Ghazipur 46

33 Gonda 42

34 Gorakhpur 214

35 Hamirpur 10

36 Hapur 46

37 Hardoi 31

38 Hathras 22

39 Jalaun 15

40 Jaunpur 65

Sl. DistrictsTotal no. of Registered Centres

41 Jhansi 62

42 Kannauj 20

43 Kanpur Dehat 9

44 Kanpur Nagar 211

45 Kashi Ram Nagar 12

46 Kaushambi 16

47 Kushinagar 42

48 Lakhimpur Kheri 53

49 Lalitpur 11

50 Lucknow 480

51 Maharajganj 19

52 Mahoba 3

53 Mainpuri 15

54 Mathura 90

55 Mau 33

56 Meerut 182

57 Mirzapur 18

58 Moradabad 90

59 Muzaffarnagar 77

60 Pilibhit 34

61 Pratapgarh 58

62 Raebareli 35

63 Rampur 34

64 Saharanpur 106

65 Sambhal 36

66 Sant Kabir Nagar 14

67 Shahjahanpur 35

68 Shamli 23

69 Siddharth Nagar 30

70 Sitapur 33

71 Sonebhadra 26

72 Srawasti 3

73 Sultanpur 36

74 Unnao 18

75 Varanasi 206

Total 4,861


UTTAR PRADESH

REGISTRATION OF CENTRESUttar Pradesh is among those states of India which have the highest number of centres registered under the PCPNDT Act. According to the data shared by the Directorate of Family Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh (up to March 2015), since the inception of the PCPNDT Act, 4,861 centres have been registered across the 75 districts in the state.

District-wise break-up of data suggests that the state capital Lucknow (480) has the highest number of registered centres, followed by Allahabad (327), Agra (287), Ghaziabad (259), Gautam Budh Nagar (224), Gorakhpur (214) and Varanasi (206). The lowest number of centres registered are in Chitrakoot (3), Mahoba (3) and Srawasti (3) districts.

106

INSPECTIONS OF CENTRES As per the information available, a total of 4,681 inspections were conducted by the Appropriate Authority from April 2014-March 2015. The maximum number of inspections were conducted in Kanpur Nagar (446), Gorakhpur (257), Allahabad (195), Bareilly (186) and Muradabad (145) districts.

As per the records, during the same period another 23 inspections were done in 15 districts with the help of decoy women. The maximum number of inspections with decoy women were done in Azamgarh (5), followed by Bulandshahr (3) and Sultanpur (2) districts.

SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATIONAs per the affi davit fi led in response to the Supreme Court order of September 16, 2014, registration of 246 centres were either suspended or cancelled by the Appropriate Authority till September 2014 in Uttar Pradesh. Maximum number of registrations have been suspended/cancelled in Kanpur Nagar (75), Varanasi (32), Khushi Nagar (27) and Lakhimpur Kheri (22) districts.

When we compare the total number of suspensions/cancellations (246) with the total number of cases fi led in the state (145), we get to see a completely different picture. Though the reasons for suspensions/cancellations of registrations are not known, it is believed that such action by the Appropriate Authority would have been taken on the basis of violations by the centres under the PCPNDT Act. Ideally, after suspension/cancellation of registration, a case should be fi led in the court against the centres by the Appropriate Authority.

SEAL/SEIZURE OF ULTRASOUND MACHINESAs of March 2015, there were a total of 4,403 fi xed and 441 portable ultrasound machines in the state. Out of this, 120 ultrasound machines (99 fi xed and 23 portable) were sealed for different violations under the PCPNDT Act. Maximum number of ultrasound machines were sealed in Khushinagar (27), followed by Saharanpur (15) and Lucknow (12).

COURT CASES

STATUS OF COURT CASES

As of March 2015, a total of 145 cases were fi led under the PCPNDT Act in different districts of Uttar Pradesh, out of which 124 cases are pending and 21 have been disposed off.

As per information shared by the Directorate of Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, at the Regional Workshop organised in September 2015, in Jaipur by SHIFW, the number of cases has gone up from 145 to 169. The number of disposed off cases have also gone up from 21 to 30. Of these 30 cases, the prosecution was able to get the conviction in six. This means that in the remaining 24 cases, the accused were acquitted.

Same information is available on the offi cial website (www.pyaribitiya.in), where it has been mentioned that 169 court cases have been fi led and 30 cases disposed (August 19, 2015).

With only six cases of conviction in the state, the number looks insignifi cant. It is believed that the conviction rate under the PCPNDT Act in any state could be indicative of the level of deterrence and fear of law among the people.

107

Source: Offi cial website www.pyaribitiya.in (August 2015)

FILING OF COURT CASESThough 145 cases were fi led in the state by March 2015, there are 41 districts where no case has been registered since the inception of the PCPNDT Act in the state. The number of districts with fi ve or less court cases is 27, while the number of districts with more than fi ve court cases is seven. These include Kushinagar (27), Kanpur Nagar (19), Meerut (14), and Lucknow (10), Gorakhpur (6), Agra (7) and Bijnaur (7) districts.


The following table gives the break-up of 145 court cases (as of March 2015) shared by the Directorate of Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh:

Sl. Districts Court casesOngoing/pending cases

Disposed off cases

1 Agra 7 4 3

2 Amethi 3 3 -

3 Azamgarh 3 2 1

4 Baghpat 2 - 2

5 Bahraich 2 2 -

6 Barabanki 1 1 -

7 Bareilly 3 3 -

8 Basti 2 2 -

9 Bhadohi 1 - 1

10 Bijnaur 7 6 1

11 Deoria 2 2 -

12 Etawah 1 - 1

13 Farrukhabad 1 1 -

14 Gautam Budh Nagar 3 2 1

15 Ghaziabad 4 3 1

16 Gorakhpur 6 6 -

17 Hardoi 1 1 -

18 Jaunpur 2 2 -

19 Kanpur Nagar 19 19 -

20 Kaushambi 1 1 -

21 Kushinagar 27 27 -

22 Lucknow 10 10 -

23 Maharajganj 3 2 1

24 Mainpuri 1 1 -

TOTAL COURT CASES


CONVICTION ACQUITTAL

169 6 24




41 27 7

108

Sl. Districts Court casesOngoing/pending cases

Disposed off cases

25 Meerut 14 8 6

26 Mirzapur 4 4 -

27 Moradabad 1 1 -

28 Muzaffarnagar 4 3 1

29 Saharanpur 3 2 1

30 Shamli 2 2 -

31 Siddharthnagar 1 1 -

32 Srawasti 1 - 1

33 Unnao 1 1 -

34 Varanasi 2 2 -

Total 145 124 21

*Directorate of Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh - March 2015

FILING OF COURT CASES IN RECENT YEARSThe information available on the offi cial website (www.pyaribitiya.in as on August 19, 2015) regarding court cases fi led in Uttar Pradesh suggests that a maximum number of 68 cases were fi led in 2013, followed by 23 in 2014 and 13 in 2012. Another 23 court cases were fi led till July 2015 in the state.

Sl. Year Number of cases/F.I.R fi led

1. 2002 17

2. 2003 0

3. 2004 1

4. 2005 1

5. 2006 4

6. 2007 3

7. 2008 10

8. 2009 1

9. 2010 2

10. 2011 3

11. 2012 13

12. 2013 68

13. 2014 23

14. 2015 (up to July 2015) 23

Total 169

Source: Offi cial website www.pyaribitiya.in (August 2015)

Year-wise break-up of the fi gure on suspension/cancellation is not available. However, as per the affi davit fi led by Uttar Pradesh in the Supreme Court, a total of 246 registrations have either been suspended or cancelled till September 2014. The court cases fi led is quite less in comparison to the number of suspension/cancellation of registration.

ONGOING/ PENDING CASESIf we go by the break-up of 145 court cases, we fi nd that there are 124 cases pending/ongoing in different districts of Uttar Pradesh, while 21 cases have been closed/decided. The maximum number of cases pending/ongoing are in Kushinagar (27), Kanpur Nagar (19) and Lucknow (10). Unfortunately, not a single case has been disposed off so far (refer to table district-wise fi ling of court cases).

109

According to the latest information shared by the Directorate, the number of ongoing/pending cases in Uttar Pradesh has gone up from 124 to 139. This could be arrived at by deducting the total number of disposed off cases (30) from the total number of court cases (169).

NATURE OF OFFENSEInformation about the nature of complaints is available only for 137 court cases which include 18 cases of non-registration, 110 cases of non-maintenance of records, three cases of communication of sex of foetus and six cases of advertisements about sex selection.

CONVICTIONOut of a total of 169 cases (offi cial website, August 2015), the accused have been convicted in six cases. And interestingly, those are in the districts (see below) which have the minimum number of court cases.

Sl. District Conviction*

1. Bijnore 1

3. Kaushambi 1

4. Maharajganj 2

2. Muzaffarnagar 1

5. Siddharthnagar 1

Total 6

Source: *Offi cial website www.pyaribitiya.in (August 2015)

ACQUITTALAs per the information provided by the Directorate of Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, a total of 30 cases have been disposed off in the state. Out of which, conviction was given in six cases. So the remaining 24 court cases relate to acquittal.


There is no information available as to whether the Appropriate Authority has reported about all the six cases of conviction to the UP Medical Council.

NON-REGISTRATION


COMMUNICATION OF THE SEX OF THE FOETUS


TOTAL

18 110 6 1373

110110

UTTAR PRADESH

RAJASTHAN

PUNJAB

ODISHA

MAHARASHTRA

MADHYA PRADESH

HIMACHAL PRADESH

HARYANA

GUJARAT

DELHI

CHHATISGARH

BIHAR

REGISTERED CENTRES

UTTA

RPR

ADES

H

RAJA

STHA

N

PUNJ

AB

ODIS

HA

MAH

ARAS

HTRA

MAD

HYA

PRAD

ESH

HIM

ACHA

L PR

ADES

H

HARY

ANA

GUJA

RAT

DELH

I

CHHA

TISG

ARH

BIHA

R

169*

*

**As of August 2015

COURT CASES

4,861*

* As of March 2015

111 111





PENDING

ACQUITTAL

CONVICTION

139

24TOTAL CASES

1696

112

Conclusion

The Indian legislature had enacted the PCPNDT Act with an intention to prevent misuse of the pre-natal diagnostic techniques for sex selection in the country. The Act was enacted with the aim to regulate the use of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for the purpose of detecting genetic abnormalities, metabolic disorders, chromosomal abnormalities, congenital malformations or sex-linked disorders and not for sex determination before or after conception.

However, statistics indicate that the provisions of the Act are not being properly and effectively implemented in many of the states. Close monitoring and follow up action in order to prevent misuse of the technology and the practice of gender-biased sex selection is almost absent. Moreover, the details provided in the affi davits have made it clear that only a few cases end in conviction.

Cases fi led under the Act are pending since years in many courts of the country and their disposal largely depends on the engagement and interest of the Public Prosecutors (PPs) in the districts. Seldom have those cases ended in conviction and sentences; a fact known to violators of the law too. Furthermore, stay orders issued by the courts on the action taken by the state medical councils against an accused person has become a matter of serious concern as it delays the judgement process.

It is assumed that the ignorance of the offi cials on duty during the inspections about the offences and poor drafting of the cases could be a reason for more acquittals. In states like Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana where the number of acquittal cases is large, the authorities should be sensitised and trained on how to conduct inspections and collect evidence. At the same time, the Public Prosecutors should also be trained on drafting of cases. Similarly, in order to prevent acquittal in cases particularly related to record keeping, the judiciary should be informed and sensitised about the signifi cance of record keeping under the PCPNDT Act and its different provisions.

The process of the implementation of the PCPNDT Act should not be connected to the practice of abortion. Often when an abandoned foetus is found, the administration assumes that it is related to the PCPNDT Act and acts accordingly. A case in point is that of Nayagarh district of Odisha where a case was fi led in 2007 after an abandoned foetus was found. Following this, cases were lodged by the police against all the ultrasound centres, despite the fact that the PCPNDT Act prohibits only sex selection and has nothing to do with abortions. However, what might be important is to implement

113

the PCPNDT Act itself by conducting inspections and checking records on a regular basis rather than taking random action against the centres after an incident like this takes place.

Tracking of pregnant women through a device like ‘Active Tracker’ or any other means to prevent gender-biased sex selection is not advisable. A woman should be able to seek legal and safe abortion as per law and it should not be assumed that all women seeking abortions are doing so for the reasons of sex selection. Ensuring that women register for ante-natal care on time and undertake all check-ups during pregnancy is a constructive measure, but this monitoring should not extend to them assuming that they are ‘conduits’ to sex selection. Tracking of such a nature should be avoided. Moreover, it should be realised that installation of ‘Active Tracker’ so far has not been able to bring to an end sex determination tests. This is evident from the studies conducted in the past by United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and Norway India Partnership Initiative (NIPI).

Proper documentation of the records, data and follow-up action by the concerned department is an area which needs to be addressed on a priority basis.

The purpose behind the enactment can only be actualised and its object fruitfully realised when the law implementers and the State Medical Councils perform their duty as specifi ed in the Act with accountability, dedication and commitment. There also needs to be an awakened awareness among the law implementers and state medical councils with regard to daughter aversion and pre and post birth discrimination in a society. The stakeholders must recognise the social ramifi cations of the issue, the context in which discrimination is taking place and realise that they need to play an effective role in tackling gender discrimination through law, while the other community-based groups work on the long-term agenda of attitudinal change.

116

Girls Count is an independent national level

coalition of more than 200 civil society

organisations and individuals across India,

working to address factors that lead to declining

child sex ratio. Members are united in their

commitment towards creating a more gender

equal and gender just society by challenging

patriarchy and stopping gender-biased sex

selection. At present, the coalition secretariat is

supported technically and fi nancially by UNFPA

and NFI, while it continues to raise resources for

its various campaigns and activities.

3/42, 2nd Floor, Jangpura-B, New Delhi-110014T +91-11-24379452E [email protected] W www.girlscount.in /girlscount

CIVIL SOCIETY REPORT CARD PCPNDT ACT - Girls Count Card 2015 - final.pdf · CIVIL SOCIETY REPORT...

Documents

Transcript of CIVIL SOCIETY REPORT CARD PCPNDT ACT - Girls Count Card 2015 - final.pdf · CIVIL SOCIETY REPORT...