Civil society urges govt to remove accused under the PNDT Act from committee Dr Harsh Mahajan is an accused in the sex determination case filed by Mitu Khurana who was forced undergo the test for bearing twin girls Shonali Ghosal
Eighteen years after the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act (PC & PNDT Act) was passed for the “regulation and prevention of misuse of diagnostic techniques,” the government’s intention on curbing sex determination remains unclear. Dr Harsh Mahajan, an accused under the PC & PNDT Act and president of the Indian Radiological and Imaging Association (IRIA), had been appointed as a member of a committee, which is set to examine and possibly amend the format of Form F (the mandatory form to be filled and recorded by all sonography centres when conducting an ultrasound sonography). “They might have gone by his post as president of the IRIA. But the government should’ve checked his track record,” says Rizwan Parwez, a member of the National Inspection and Monitoring Committee (NIMC) and the Centre for Advocacy and Research. The court has taken cognizance of Mahajan as an accused (among others) after Mitu Khurana filed a case against her husband and in-laws for allegedly forcing her to undergo a sex determination test in 2005. She further states that they put pressure on her to undergo an abortion on learning that she was carrying twin girls. “This is a violation of the Act. The government never supported me in my case,” says Mitu, who was told by a PC & PNDT official to stop wasting her life and give her husband a son if he wanted one. “Even though Mahajan is not the doctor who performed the sex determination test, he is an accused because he holds approximately 80 per cent of the shares in Mahajan Imaging Centre where the test was conducted and is also a board member of the centre,” Mitu clarifies. The PC & PNDT law clearly states: “No person who, in the opinion of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, has been associated with the use or promotion of pre-natal diagnostic technique for determination of sex shall be appointed as a member of the Advisory Committee.” “It’s like inviting a murderer undergoing trial to amend a law on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,” adds Parwez. But all is not lost. In a meeting of the committee held last week (28 September), activists protested Mahajan’s presence and asked him to leave. Donna Fernandes, the head of Vimochana (an NGO on women’s rights) and a member of the same committee was present at the meeting. She recounts that it was Kiran Moghe, the Maharashtra president of the All India Democratic Women's Organisation who raised the issue. “He (Mahajan) made some weak noise about being innocent and that he had a lot of suggestions, but other members said that he may be innocent, but, if he has a case in court, it isn’t right that he should be attending this meeting,” she says. Finally, Sandeep Kumar Nayak, Joint Secretary, Women & Child Development (who was also chairing the meeting) told him that he had said something else at registration and asked Mahajan to leave. “The government should’ve sent a strong message that you can’t be part of such an important committee before the civil society brought it up,” says Parwez. Mahajan had to leave that meeting but whether any action has been taken to permanently remove him from the committee is not known. Incidentally, he is also a member of another similar committee, which has to examine, and perhaps, amend the provisions of the Act itself. “People like him aren’t worried about implementation, they’re just concerned with making money,” says health activist Dr Sabu Geore, who is a member of the other committee. Both Anuradha Vemuri, director of the PNDT Division, and Dr Harsh Mahajan remained unavailable for comment. Shonali Ghosal is a Correspondent with Tehelka. |
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment