Implementation of Pre

Conception And Pre Natal

Diagnostic Techniques Act

(P.C-P.N.D.T Act).5/19/2011 1

INTRODUCTION

The major prohibitions under the PC-P.N.D.T Act

are-

Prohibition of sex selection ,before and after

conception(section 3A of the act)

Prohibition of advertisement of any technique

for sex selection as well as sex determination

(Sec 22 of the Act)

Prohibition on sale of ultrasound machines to

persons not registered under this Act (Rule 3A)

5/19/2011 2

Penalties for the offences

Non-availability of copy of the

PNDT Act in the registered

centre

Case may be launched in the

court of JMIC u/s 25 of the Act

Show cause notice u/s

20(1),(2) for temporary

suspension of registration. Non- Display of registration

certificate in the centre.

Non-Display of Board in the

premises in English and Local

Language

Advertisement relating to pre-

conception and pre-natal

determination of sex

U/s 22(3) of the PNDT

Amendment Act, Case is to be

launched in the court u/s 28

of the Act

5/19/2011 3

Unregistered

Centers/Machine

equipment to be sealed &

seized by the Appropriate

Authority concerned.

Launch the case in the court

u/s 28 of the Act.

Registration granted after

Penalty & affidavit

Record Keeping

Irregularities in record

keeping as per revised form

‘F’ are a major offence

Contravention (a major

offence) of provision of

section 5 and 6 of the Act and

punishable U/s 23(1) of the

PNDT Act.

Sex Selection Violation of section 5 and 6 of

the Act and punishable u/s 23

of the Act.

5/19/2011 4

Gujarat High Court in “Suo Motu Vs State Of Gujarat - on 30

September, 2008”

Any improper maintenance of record in itself is

equivalent to violation of the provisions of sections 5

and 6 (sub-section (3) of section 4 of the act.

Cases where the form F is not filled at all, or where the

vital details are lacking, such that the woman who has

undergone the ultrasound cannot be identified, than

this lapse cannot be passed over as a procedural lapse,

and has to be in all seriousness tried in a court of law.

5/19/2011 5

Centre For Enquiry Into Health And Allied Themes (C.E.H.A.T) & Ors V. Union Of India & Ors

[2003]

Directed the appropriate authorities to take prompt action against all bodies who are operating without a valid certificate of registration under the act.

The centers which are unregistered are required to be prosecuted by the authorities under provisions of the act and there is no question of issue of warning and to permit them to continue their illegal activities.

Appropriate authorities or any officer of the central or the state government authorized in this behalf is required to file complaint under section 28 of the act for prosecuting the offenders.5/19/2011 6

National Support And Monitoring Cell (NSMC) In A Five

Month (15th May -14th October 06) Activity ReportGave the observations that in state of Delhi-

There was no list of the 81 complaints/ prosecutions

supposedly launched by the state authorities.

Court cases were supposedly launched only against 3

out of 35 unregistered establishments found during

raids

Out of other 46 complaints where cases were supposed

to be launched-1 clinic registration has been cancelled,

1 clinic fine was imposed of Rs.15,000/- only and Court

cases were launched against 19 cases, out of which 8

cases were later withdrawn at various stages.

5/19/2011 7

• Neither transparency nor clarity in thefunctioning of the Authorities authorizedunder the PNDT Act.

• Wrong-reporting regarding the number ofcourt cases filed.

• Lack of accountability and will to enforcethe law.

• The State is totally complacent on theissue, and there is no monitoring of actionsprescribed in the Act,

• Total irresponsible reporting in flagrantviolation of norms, rules and regulations.5/19/2011 8

(NSMC) concluded their study stating that in state of

Delhi

NON SUBMISSION OF MONTHLY

RECORDS , 157 DEFICIENCY IN

RECORD KEEPING, 109

0

3

DEFICIENCY IN RECORD KEEPING

COURT CASE

SEALED

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

5/19/2011 9

48 30 13 11

4

4

44

2 1

0

0

1 1

2

0

13

0

1

0 1

0 04

01

0

2

0COURT-CASE

SEALED

SHOW CAUSE

NOTICE

5/19/2011 10

OFFENCE TOTAL

ONLY SHOW

CAUSE NOTICE %

LATE SUBMISSION 48 48 100

UNKNOWN 31 30 96.77

NO REFERRAL SLIPS 14 13 92.85

INCOMP. FORM F 12 11 91.66

NO QUALIFIED DOC 10 4 40

NO REGISTER MANATAINED 4 4 100

REGISTERATION EXP 6 4 66.66

UNREGISTERED MACHINE 7 4 57.14

BOOK UNAVAILABLE 2 2 100

STING OPERATION 4 2 50

BOARD NOT DISPLAED 1 1 100

UNREGISTER PLACE. 2 1 50

NON SUBMISSION OF MONTHLY

RECORDS 157 157 100

DEFICIENCY IN RECORD KEEPING 112 109 97.32

TOTAL 410 390 95.12

11

5/19/2011 12

OBSERVATIONS

There were 404 establishments which were found violating the

provisions of P.C-P.N.D.T act.

The penalties imposed were not according to the law/ Orders of

Honorable Supreme Court /Gujarat High Court in Majority of cases

In many cases in which court case was to be filed ,only show cause

notice was issued.

The Authorities are letting off the establishments sealed for improper

record keeping by taking simple Penalty and affidavit.

5/19/2011 13

OBSERVATIONS

The Maximum no. of offenders were in North-West District of Delhi, while in the New Delhi District no establishment was found violating the provisions of P.C-P.N.D.T act

Court case has been filed in only 11 out of 404 establishments found violating the act.

Only show cause notice was given to 390 out of 404 establishments found violating the act

5/19/2011 14

• Provided that the person conducting ultrasonography

on a pregnant woman shall keep complete record

thereof in the clinic in such manner, as may be

prescribed, and any deficiency or inaccuracy found

therein shall amount to contravention of provisions of

section 5 or section 6 unless contrary is proved by the

person conducting such ultrasonography;

•Why the case is not

registered against

the doctor who

conducted the

ultrasound????

•Why was the fetal ultrasound

done??? The kidney bladder

scan which has been asked

has not been done properly.

•Fetal ultrasound which has

not been asked has been

done in full detail.

• In short

• There is no form F filled up

• My name is not in district records also

• Nobody has asked for fetal ultrasound. What has been asked has not been done

• My husband has signed an agreement that he will never again ask me or force me to undergo sex determination or sex selective abortion in future.

• And yet according to authorities

there is no direct /circumstantial

evidence of sex

determination???????

• Than what evidence are the

authorities looking for??????

• “Implementation of PNDT Act is only on papers. Civil Surgeons -cum-

District Appropriate Authorities have always soft corner towards

owners of ultrasound scan centers , besides this political interference

is also main hurdle in the success of court cases.

• In February 2007 a letter was issued by the Union Health Ministry

New Delhi that District Magistrate, will be DAA under PC PNDT Act,

but this letter has not been implemented by any State for the reasons

best known to everybody.

• In Bathinda District PNDT Cell was sent up under the Chairmanship

of District Magistrate, Bathinda in the year 2003 and when PNDT Cell

was in working condition female birth rate was increased in the

district but in the year 2007, black forces compelled the State Govt .

Ultimately no meeting of PNDT Cell has been held after 26-11-2007.

• In some cases DAA after retirement given statement in favor of the

doctors against whom complaint was filed by him when he /she was

in service. In case GOI is serious to save the Girl Child, she must

declare National Emergency on female foeticide , otherwise every

body know the result ......” – Dr Sadhu Ram Kusla- Project Officer,

PNDT Cell, Bhatinda, Punjab5/19/2011 29

RECOMMENDATIONS

• The implementing authorities should be made accountable for sex ratios of their districts.

• Awareness should be increased in the general masses regarding the rules of Act.

• The P.C-P.N.D.T act must be included in the syllabus of medical and related disciplines.

• The media should be involved in all raids, so that no complaint can be swept under the carpet by the implementing authorities.

5/19/2011 30

RECOMMENDATIONS

• The National Inspection and Monitoring Committee should

have a regulatory role over the legal actions being initiated

against the clinics/establishments raided by them.

• All the actions taken by the implementing authorities should

be accessible to the civil society

• All cases of P.C-P.N.D.T should be immediately transferred

to fast track court.

• The loopholes in the act should be plugged , which allow the

offenders to get away with lighter sentences.

5/19/2011 31

• And AUTHORITIES And

JUDICIARY Should Be

SENSITIZED And TRAINED So

As To Help And Not Harass Any

Women Who Wants To Save Her

Daughters

5/19/2011 32

5/19/2011 33