Gujarat High Court in “Suo Motu Vs State Of Gujarat - on 30 September, 2008” <br /><ul><li>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.</li></ul>5/19/2011<br />5<br />
Centre For Enquiry Into Health And Allied Themes (C.E.H.A.T) & Ors V. Union Of India & Ors <br /><ul><li>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.</li></ul>5/19/2011<br />6<br />
National Support And Monitoring Cell (NSMC) In A Five Month (15th May -14th October 06) Activity Report <br />Gave the observations that in state of Delhi- <br /><ul><li>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fine was imposed of Rs.15,000/- only and Court cases were launched against 19 cases, out of which 8 cases were later withdrawn at various stages. </li></ul>5/19/2011<br />7<br />
<ul><li> Neither transparency nor clarity in the functioning of the Authorities authorized under the PNDT Act.
Wrong-reporting regarding the number of court cases filed.
Lack of accountability and will to enforce the law.
The State is totally complacent on the issue, and there is no monitoring of actions prescribed in the Act,
Total irresponsible reporting in flagrant violation of norms, rules and regulations.</li></ul>5/19/2011<br />8<br />(NSMC) concluded their study stating that in state of Delhi <br />
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;<br />
In short<br />There is no form F filled up<br />My name is not in district records also<br />Nobody has asked for fetal ultrasound. What has been asked has not been done <br />My husband has signed an agreement that he will never again ask me or force me to undergo sex determination or sex selective abortionin future. <br />
And yet according to authorities there is no direct /circumstantial evidence of sex determination???????<br />Than what evidence are the authorities looking for??????<br />
“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. <br />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.<br /> 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. <br />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, Punjab<br />5/19/2011<br />29<br />
RECOMMENDATIONS<br />The implementing authorities should be made accountable for sex ratios of their districts.<br />Awareness should be increased in the general masses regarding the rules of Act.<br />The P.C-P.N.D.T act must be included in the syllabus of medical and related disciplines.<br />The media should be involved in all raids, so that no complaint can be swept under the carpet by the implementing authorities. <br />5/19/2011<br />30<br />
RECOMMENDATIONS<br />The National Inspection and Monitoring Committee should have a regulatory role over the legal actions being initiated against the clinics/establishments raided by them. <br />All the actions taken by the implementing authorities should be accessible to the civil society<br />All cases of P.C-P.N.D.T should be immediately transferred to fast track court. <br />The loopholes in the act should be plugged , which allow the offenders to get away with lighter sentences. <br />5/19/2011<br />31<br />
And AUTHORITIES And JUDICIARY Should Be SENSITIZED And TRAINED So As To Help And Not Harass Any Women Who Wants To Save Her Daughters <br />5/19/2011<br />32<br />