What was the petitioner seeking? 
The petitioner, the Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI), had argued against Sections 23(1) and 23(2) of the PCPNDT Act, stating, “…even the smallest anomaly in paperwork which is, in fact, an inadvertent and unintentional error has made the obstetricians and gynaecologists vulnerable to the prosecution by the Authorities all over the country,” The News Minute reported. Per Hindustan Times, the petition stated, “the license of members of noble charitable profession are being suspended on account of clerical errors/mistakes in paper work under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. On account of clerical errors in filling up of the forms, it would not be appropriate to inflict the punishment…” adding,  “The Act fails to classify offence of actual sex determination vis-à-vis clerical error in maintenance of record. There is no gradation of offence.” Senior advocates Shyam Divan and Soli Sorabjee, who represented FOGSI, contended that the Act did not distinguish between criminal offences and irregularities in documentation, such as incomplete Form F (a mandatory record containing information of a pregnant person undergoing an ultrasound, such as previous children and obstetric history), clerical errors like an incomplete address, lack of a date, objectionable pictures of Radha Krishna in the sonography room, and the like, the Deccan Herald reported.
 
The sections of the Act in question cover these offences and penalties. Section 23(1) addresses “Any medical geneticist, gynaecologist, registered medical practitioner or any person who owns a Genetic Counselling Centre, a Genetic Laboratory or a Genetic Clinic or is employed in such a Centre, Laboratory or Clinic and renders his professional or technical services to or at such a Centre, Laboratory or Clinic, whether on an honorary basis or otherwise,” stating that if an individual violations the Act, they are punishable with up to three years’ imprisonment, and a monetary fine of up to Rs. 10,000. Section 23(2) states that the name of the registered medical practitioner will be reported to the State Medical Council to take all necessary action, including the suspension of their registration of a court frames charges against them and until the case is disposed of, and removing their name from the Councils’ register for five years (for a first offence) or permanently (for repeated offence), if the medical practitioner is convicted.
 
“At present, the punishment for any clerical error in Form F is the same as if someone were to perform illegal sex determination. This is what the petition filed by FOGSI sought to change,” an FOGSI official told The News Minute, adding, “The form is complex and requires a lot of extensive details. Clerical errors do happen and that alone cannot be used to sentence someone to such a harsh punishment. It needs to be more flexible”.
 
What did the Supreme Court say? 
In its judgement, the Supreme Court refused to dilute the sections that were challenged, stating that “dilution of the provisions of the Act or the Rules would only defeat the purpose of the Act to prevent female foeticide, and relegate the right to life of the girl child under Article 21 of the Constitution, to a mere formality.”
 
With regards to the Form F, the Court highlighted several instances in which the forms have contained errors, including incorrect phone numbers, wrong identity and proofs of address, or missing identity proofs, and even incorrect obstetric and abortion history. In one case, the patient’s signature was missing. The Court stated, “Thus, the non­filling of information cannot be termed to be clerical error, but in case it is kept vague that itself facilitates an offence,” later adding, “The wholesome social legislation would be defeated in case Form is not filled which is sine qua non toto undertake tests/procedures if such condition does not exist, no such procedure can be performed and diluting the provisions would be against the gender justice.”
 
The Court said, “The Act intends to prevent mischief of female foeticide and the declining sex ratio in India. When such is the objective of the Act and the Rules and mischief which it seeks to prevent, violation of the rights under Part III of the Constitution is not found,” and later highlighted the gravity of the ill of female foeticide, stating, “The mischief sought to be remedied is grave and the effort is being made to meet the challenge to prevent the birth of the girl child. Whether Society should give preference to male child is a matter of grave concern. The same is violative of Article 39A and ignores the mandate of Article 51A(e) which casts a duty on citizens to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women. When sex selection is prohibited by virtue of provisions of Section 6, the other interwoven provisions in the Acts to prevent the mischief obviously their constitutionality is to be upheld.”
 
Moreover, the Supreme Court also noted that “There can be a legislative provision for imposing burden of proof in reverse order relating to gender justice. In the light of prevalent violence against women and children, the Legislature has enacted various Acts, and amended existing statutes, reversing the traditional burden of proof.” It cited examples where the burden of proof has been reversed, including in “Sections 29 and 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in which there is presumption regarding commission and abetment of certain offences under the Act, and presumption of mental state of the accused respectively,” and also mentioning sections of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court also cited judgments in multiple previous cases as precedent to support its emphasis on the proper maintenance of records; these included the Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India (2013), the Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat (2009), and Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes (CEHAT) v. Union of India, (2001), with the latter being a landmark judgment addressing the issue of female foeticide.
 
In its emphasis on adequate maintenance of records, the Court echoed a government directive earlier this year, in which it declared that the “non-maintenance of records is not merely a technical or procedural lapse in the context of sex determination, it is the most significant piece of evidence for identifying the accused. It is further contended that clerical errors in Form ‘F’ fall under Section 4 of the Act and any deficiency or inaccuracy found therein shall amount to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act unless contrary is proved by the person conducting such ultrasonography,” per the Hindustan Times.
 
Female foeticide in India 
Female foeticide is a grave concern for India, with several states having alarmingly low sex ratios. The Supreme Court itself, in its May 2019 judgment, noted the consequences of a lopsided sex ratio, stating, “A skewed sex­ ratio is likely to lead to greater incidences of violence against women and increase in practices of trafficking, ‘bride­buying’ etc,” and noting that “The rigorous implementation of the Act is an edifice on which rests the task of saving the girl child.”
 
The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act (PNDT Act) was passed by Parliament in 1994, and came into force on January 1, 1996, in response to the declining sex ratio in the country, and after ultrasound technology that facilitated prenatal sex determination was widely used. The Act was amended in 2003 to more adequately regulate technologies that emerged for sex determination and selection, and, on February 14, 2003, was renamed the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (PCPNDT Act).
 
Unfortunately, the Act has not been adequately implemented. In 2011, researchers at the Centre for Global Health at the University of Toronto estimated that four to 12 million female foetuses had been aborted between 1980 and 2010 on the basis of their sex. In 2015, DownToEarth noted that, according to the 2011 census, the child sex ration (0-6 years) decreased to 919 girls per every 1,000 boys compared to the 2001 census, when it was 927 girls for every 1,000 boys. There was, however, an increase in the sex ratio, going from 933 females to 1,000 males in 2001 to 943 females to 1,000 males in 2011. The Supreme Court’s recent judgment noted that even after 24 years of the law being in place, there have been only 586 convictions out of 4,202 registered cases, which “reflects the challenges being faced by the Appropriate Authority in implementing this social legislation.”
 
In its July 2015 analysis of the PCPNDT Act that focused on the capital, Delhi, the India Today called the Act “a farce,” noting that “Various trial courts in Delhi have shied away from awarding the maximum punishment to offenders and instead let off the convicts with a nominal fine of Rs 1,000. The PNDT Act provides for a maximum punishment of three-year jail term and a penalty of up to Rs 50,000.” It added that in spite of rulings from the Supreme Court and several high courts, “the courts have shown their reluctance in sending the offenders to jail. In many cases, the convicts have been let off with a mere warning by the judge…” Data obtained through a Right To Information (RTI) application found that 31 of 52 cases under the Act had been pending in various Delhi courts, India Today reported, later adding that 20 such cases had been pending for more than a decade, despite the Supreme Court having ordered lower courts to adjudicate such cases within six months.
 
The Supreme Court on preventing female foeticide  
This situation came about in spite of repeated instances in with the Supreme Court issued guidelines to make the implementation of the PCPNDT Act more effective. Per LiveLaw, these instances include CEHAT and others vs. Union of India and others (2001), CEHAT and others vs. Union of India and others (2003), and Voluntary Health Association of Punjab vs. Union of India and others (2013).
 
In CEHAT and others vs. Union of India and others (2001), the Court acknowledged the problem of female infanticide and foeticide, and directed the central government and the Central Supervisory Board (CSB) “create public awareness against the practice of pre-natal determination of sex and female foeticide through appropriate releases/programmes”. It also directed that the central government implement the PNDT Act and its associated rules “with all vigour and zeal”. The Court directed the CSB, a body established under the Act, to meet every six months, review and monitor the implementation of the Act, and issue directions to appropriate authorities in the states and union territories “to furnish quarterly returns” regarding the Act’s implementation and working. It also directed the CSB to formulate a code of conduct that should be followed by people working in the relevant bodies. The Court also issued directives to the states and union territories to also create awareness, and appoint appropriate authorities and advisory committees.
 
This judgment was delivered in response to a writ petition filed in 2000 under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which address remedies for the enforcement of rights. The petitioners were the Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes (CEHAT), which was the research centre of the Anusandhan Trust; the Mahila Sarvangeen Utkarsh Mandal (MASUM); and Dr. Sabu M. George, who had conducted extensive research in the field, per case analysis from the Strategic Advocacy for Human Rights (SAHR). The petitioners were concerned about the implementation of the PNDT Act.
 
The landmark Supreme Court judgment in the case, which came in 2003, detailed the government’s efforts during the three years since the petition was filed. In that judgement the Court recalled its previous order of May 2001. It outlined the trajectory of the case since. In November 2001, the respondent, the counsel for the respondent, the Union of India, said that the central government had decided to take concrete steps for the Act’s implementation, and suggested that a National Inspection and Monitoring Committee (NIMC) be established; the Supreme Court ordered for this to be so.
 
In December 2001, it was noted that certain state governments had not provided names of members of advisory committees, and they were directed to do so. The Court also stated, “”For implementation of the Act and the rules, it appears that it would be desirable if the Central Government frames appropriate rules with regard to sale of ultrasound machines to various clinics and issue directions not to sell machines to unregistered clinics.” In March 2003, it was contended that people were unaware of the Act being amended, and several reliefs were sought, to address advertising, people or organisations selling ultrasound machines, and other aspects.
 
In September 2003, when the key judgement was delivered, the Court stated, “In view of the various directions issued by this Court, as quoted above, no further directions are required except that the directions issued by this Court on 4th May, 2001, 7th November, 2001, 11th December, 2001 and 31st March, 2003 should be complied with.” The Supreme Court also further directed central, state and union territory governments to publish information through advertisements and via electronic media for effective implementation of the Act. The Court added, “This process should be continued till there is awareness in public that there should not be any discrimination between male and female child.” Another key directive addressed the NMIC, stating that it should “continue to function till the Act is effectively implemented.”
 
In November 2016, in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh noted that the fact that a female child is entitled to the same equal rights as a male child required no special emphasis, LiveLaw noted. “The constitutional identity of a female child cannot be mortgaged to any kind of social or other concept that has developed or is thought of. It does not allow any room for any kind of compromise. It only permits affirmative steps that are constitutionally postulated. Be it clearly stated that when rights are conferred by the Constitution, it has to be understood that such rights are recognised regard being had to their naturalness and universalism. No one, let it be repeated, no one, endows any right to a female child or, for that matter, to a woman. The question of any kind of condescension or patronization does not arise,” the Court stated.
 
The Court also issued additional directions, including ordering state and union territories to “maintain a centralized database of civil registration records from all registration units so that information can be made available from the website regarding the number of boys and girls being born.” It also stated that information available on the website “shall contain the birth information for each District, Municipality, Corporation or Gram Panchayat so that a visual comparison of boys and girls born can be immediately seen.” Notably, it also emphasised that “The provisions contained in Sections 22 and 23 shall be strictly adhered to. Section 23(2) shall be duly complied with and it shall be reported by the authorities so that the State Medical Council takes necessary action after the intimation is given under the said provision.”
 
The Supreme Court’s most recent decision, which upheld Sections 23(1) and 23(2) has been called “formidable” by Dr. George, who was one of the three original petitioners in 2000. “If no detailed record is maintained then how could violations even be detected? I was the original petitioner in 2000 when the Supreme Court emphasised record keeping,” Dr. George told the Hindustan Times.
 
The judgement may be read here:

The post Supreme Court refuses to read down sections of PCPNDT Act appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Instead, such change of law between 1970 to 1990 has inadvertently led to increased female foeticide and higher female infant-mortality rates, finds the 2018 study that analysed families’ desires for a second child if the first child was a girl.

The findings are supported by the Economic Survey 2017-18, which found an estimated 63 million women–roughly the population of the United Kingdom–‘missing’ in India.

The study finds that girls born after legal reforms were 2-3 percentage points more likely to die before reaching their first birthday, and 9 percentage points more likely to have a younger sibling if the firstborn child was a girl. Legislative changes, coupled with the advent of prenatal ultrasound screenings that enabled sex-selective abortions, intensified the practice of female-foeticide to an extent that made girls 4 percentage points less likely to be born at all.

The study was conducted by researchers at King’s College University, New York University and the University of Essex, and published in the Journal of Development Economics, using data from three rounds of the National Family Health Survey (1991-92, 1998-9 and 2005-6) and the Rural Economic and Demographic Survey (REDS) 2006.

The researchers studied families living in five “early-reformer” states–Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka– which amended the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to allow equal inheritance rights for women and men, at different dates between 1970 and 1990. These were compared against a control group of families in states that reformed inheritance laws only in 2005, when the central government mandated equal inheritance rights across the country.

While previous studies had examined the reforms’ impact on women’s position in the marriage “market”, this is the first time researchers have analysed the impact on son-preference, female foeticide and “son-biased fertility stopping behaviour”, the authors said.

Son-preference entrenched, women remain dispossessed

Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, only sons had a direct right to ancestral property, excluding daughters from inheritance claims where the father did not leave a will.

From the 1970s onwards, changes in inheritance legislation sought to empower women by strengthening their financial and social position and reducing dependence on male relatives.

The traditional preference for sons was also supposed to lessen, because daughters, backed by possession of the family home, would be able to offer parents security in old age. Equally, this was expected to eradicate the dowry system, a key contributing factor to the perception of a daughter as a financial burden.

Instead, the reforms appear to have had “unintended” effects leading to the “elimination of girls”, as social norms that organise family structures and alliances have not kept pace with changes to the law, the study finds.

“Awarding inheritance rights to women makes parents more averse to having a daughter rather than a son,” the study says. This is because families fear that the cost of having a girl increases because property inherited by women risks falling into the control of her in-laws.

“If you transfer assets to a woman under the Hindu system it will go outside of the family to her marital home,” Pronab Sen, India’s former chief statistician and programme director at the International Growth Centre India Programme, explained this line of thinking to IndiaSpend. “Changes to inheritance law are therefore not likely to improve women’s income, since it’s unlikely the woman would get to control that new asset — which has now been acquired by her marital family.”

There also remains a strong incentive for parents to continue rewarding a son who works on and develops a family’s land, thus contributing to the family’s “wealth creation” and security for both parties later in life, the study says. Parents perceive the risk of upsetting a son by dispossessing him of the entire property as too high, one that could impact on the quality of their future care.

“In a dominantly agricultural household, the land is most important and comes before anything else,” Sen said. “Parents would want to avoid splitting up the property, making it less productive, since the only way of sharing between siblings is by selling the property and distributing the proceeds.”

The proportion of women inheriting property “did not increase significantly following the reform,” the study says. Although laws now allow women to make legal claims to property, very few make such a move, which is perceived as anti-social and rebellious.

“The family is a close knit-system, girls don’t want to go against parents and brothers and fight for property if they are denied it,” Radha Chellappa, child protection and gender advisor at the NGO Save The Children, told IndiaSpend. “The entire dowry system says that the daughters have already been given a share of the money, so they’re not entitled to the property.”

“Therefore it’s not just about having a law, it’s about effective implementation of it too,” said Chellappa. “This is a civil law, not a criminal one and depends on girls actually going to court and exercising their rights. Right now, I’m not sure this is actually happening.”

Sex-selective births increase, female infant mortality higher

Imported ultrasound machines in the 1980s enabled families to discover a foetus’ sex before its birth, allowing sex-selective abortion, or female foeticide.

As a result, the probability of girl babies being born fell by up to 4 percentage points in states where parents were both exposed to inheritance laws and ultrasound was available, when the first-born child was a girl, when compared with the control group, the study says.
This indicates that families still showed long-held cultural preference for sons, the study says, adding that the magnitude of decline in the number of girls born–which “lies outside the range regarded as consistent with biological variation or slow-changing environmental factors”–shows a deliberate response to the change in inheritance laws.

Since foeticide is a “conscious and staged act”, it is a “clean measure of parents’ preferences for having sons rather than daughters,” the study says.

In addition to eliminating girls through pre-birth sex manipulation, there is evidence that parents rid themselves of girl children by neglect, thus adjusting their household sex-composition despite legislative reforms.

There was a 2-3 percentage point increase in the number of female babies dying before their first birthday, where the first child was a girl, in post-reform and post-ultrasound states. Denying access to medical treatment and withholding food and nourishment are common methods employed to bring about premature death in unwanted children, other studies have shown.

Families were also found to be “extending their fertility”–having children at later ages–in attempts to ensure there is a boy in the family, despite inheritance reforms supposedly equalising both sexes in terms of economic standing.

Families where the first-born was a girl were 9 percentage points more likely to have a younger sibling (12% of the sample mean), than families where the first child was a boy, the study found. This, combined with the previous results, suggests that the post-reform and post-ultrasound environment inadvertently “intensified son preference in fertility”, rather than having the opposite and intended effect.

Patrilocal norms stick, son preference remains

Up to 77% of Indian parents expect to live with their sons in old age, following a ‘patrilocal’ system where sons remain in the family home after marriage while daughters leave to join their in-laws. As per this system, by remaining in and working on the ancestral land, plus caring for parents in old age, the son is usually ‘rewarded’ by inheriting the entire property after the parents’ death.

Legal reforms mandating that parents must now share equal portions of the ancestral property with both sons and daughters appear to have not changed this dynamic, the study says.

Son preference remains the status quo, suggesting that patriarchal traditions exert a stronger force on parents than legislation correcting historical gender biases.

A scant public-pension system and social security net is a key reason why co-residence with sons, as well as son preference generally, has not changed, the study suggests. No more than 35% of India’s elderly population are currently covered by pensions, with close to a third, or 39 million continuing to work in lieu of an adequate social security net, IndiaSpend reported in April 2017.

The way forward

In light of persistent biases, how can discrimination against women be reduced and their socio-economic position be elevated?
“I do not doubt the necessity or effectiveness in the long run of such legislation but we need a multi-prong effort focused on empowerment, education and targeted social welfare schemes that work at various levels in society for adult women,” Rajeshwari Deshpande, professor in the department of politics and public administration, University of Pune, told IndiaSpend. “Although [legislative reform] is perceived as a property issue, it’s not really — there’s a deeply ingrained internalised bias in favour of the male child which needs to be addressed.”

(Sanghera is a writer and researcher with IndiaSpend.)

We welcome feedback. Please write to respond@indiaspend.org. We reserve the right to edit responses for language and grammar.

Courtesy: India Spend

The post ‘Reforms Of India’s Inheritance Laws Inadvertently Increased Female Foeticide And Deaths In Infancy’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
An expectant mother having an ultrasound examination in Anand, Gujarat. The Uttar Pradesh government has left unspent about half the funds it was allocated to curb female foeticide, according to a recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The audit found that none of the diagnostic centres followed mandatory rules of preserving image records or backups taken during the ultrasonography of pregnant women. In 68% of cases, women did not even hold the necessary referral slips from their doctors.

UP, India’s most populous state, also records the second highest fertility rate in the country after Bihar. An average woman here bears at least three children in rural areas, according to the 2013 Health and Family Welfare Statistics report. However, the state is also witnessing a rapid decline in its child sex ratio. For every 1,000 boys aged between 0 and 6 years, the state has 902 girls (Census 2011), down from 916 in 2001 and 927 in 1991. Three decades ago, in 1981, UP recorded a ratio of 935.
 
Over the same period, the country’s child sex ratio has fallen from 962 girls per 1,000 boys aged 0 to 6 years, to 914 girls per 1,000 boys in 2011.

 

Source: Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
 
Latest figures for UP from 2015 indicate that the child sex ratio has further fallen to 883, observed the CAG report based on data from the Health Management Information System.
 
Nature produces more males than females, as boys are more vulnerable to infant diseases than girls. The child sex ratio, therefore, tends to mirror the sex ratio at birth–ideally, between 943 and 954 females for every 1,000 males.
 
Since 2001, the child sex ratio in India, in general, and UP, in particular, has plunged below this, suggesting that female foeticide continues unabated.
 
This is despite the fact that UP, which elects 73 of 543 members of parliament in Lok Sabha, has considerable political clout. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, won his parliament seat from Varanasi in 2014, while Congress president Sonia Gandhi bagged Rae Bareilly.
 
UP seeks funds, leaves much untouched
 
The CAG report rapped the state government for its “lackadaisical attitude” towards implementing the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC-PNDT Act). The law aims to prevent sex-selective abortions through regulation and monitoring of clinics using ultrasound equipment. Earlier this year, state chief minister Akhilesh Yadav had sworn to protect the girl child through strict implementation of the Act across UP.
 
With state elections due in five months, activists are hoping the CAG comments will be raised in political campaigns. “It’s time for politicians to rally and push for more action on crimes against unborn girls. In past UP elections, caste and communalism took precedence over basic human development issues,” said Sabu George, a veteran advocate against female foeticide and member of the National Inspection & Monitoring Committee set up under the PC-PNDT Act.
 
Between 2010 and 2015, UP–among the 10 Indian states with the lowest child sex ratios–claimed it would need Rs 20.26 crore to prevent sex-selective abortions through implementation of the Act. Of this, the state received 35% (Rs 7.09 crore) from the Centre through the National Health Mission.
 

Source: Comptroller & Auditor General
 
‘Missing daughters’, the CAG critique
 
From the funds received, the state spent 54% (Rs 3.86 crore) over five years–barely 20% of the state’s original estimate, the CAG report noted. The state also raised an additional Rs 1.9 crore through registration or renewal fees and penalties charged from diagnostic centres. This is kept in a savings bank account and remains unused.
 
“In most women empowerment schemes, UP showed significant savings ranging from 46 to 100 per cent — mainly due to poor implementation,” the CAG audit observed in a chapter entitled ‘Missing Daughters’. “Despite allocation of funds, majority of the schemes… could not achieve their goal of reducing gender disparity due to lack of planning and inefficient execution by implementing agencies and ineffective monitoring by the governance structure.”
 
“Missing Daughters” is a comprehensive audit of the implementation of the PC-PNDT Act at the state-level (carried out in 20 of 71 districts) to ascertain whether available diagnostic technologies are properly regulated and monitored.
 
13 of 20 audited districts maintain poor records
 
The audit found that none of the diagnostic centres followed mandatory rules of preserving image records or backups taken during the ultrasonography of pregnant women. In 68% of cases, women did not even hold the necessary referral slips from their doctors.
 
Further, as per the PC-PNDT Act requires, a district appellate authority (DAA) must maintain permanent records of all diagnostic centres including details of the ultrasound machines possessed. However, in 13 of 20 audited districts, no such records were available.
 
Despite this negligence, the audit found that “neither any action was taken nor any penalty imposed on the defaulting USG centres by District Magistrates” in 936 (58%) of 1,652 registered diagnostic centres in the surveyed districts. Only show-cause notices were issued to 221 centres in five years without follow-ups.
 
State and district advisory committees did not meet regularly, nor did they ensure proper follow up action on their directions. “This rendered the entire system of monitoring, created under the provisions of the PC-PNDT Act, ineffective and largely dysfunctional,” the CAG observed.
 
Owing to its size and population, UP’s ineptitude in dealing with gender disparities has considerable impact on India’s ability to improve its performance in the global human development index. Recently, the country was ranked 108th of 145 countries in the World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Index, much below neighbours such as Sri Lanka (84) and China (91). Along with Bihar and Rajasthan, UP is among the worst Indian states for women to live in, IndiaSpend reported in July 2016.
 
UP and gender ranking of rest of India
 
“One in every four Indian girls is born in UP. Thus, the state’s declining sex ratio seriously impacts India’s overall child sex ratio, and we are not likely to see much improvement in rankings in 2021 unless the issue is taken up seriously in the largest state,” said George.
 
The report on UP is also symptomatic of a larger trend of states’ poor implementation of the Act across India, as IndiaSpend has previously reported in June 2015. Since the law came into effect in 1996, only 350 people have been convicted under the Act, suggesting vast underreporting of the crime, IndiaSpend reported in August 2016.
 

 
(Saldanha is an assistant editor with IndiaSpend.)

This article was first published on India Spend
 

The post 50% Of UP Anti-Foeticide Funds Unspent, India Global Ranking Hit appeared first on SabrangIndia.