'Make Laws Against Pre-Natal Sex Selection Stringent'

'Make Laws Against Pre-Natal Sex Selection Stringent'

12 oct 2010

The national commissions for women and human rights today voiced serious concern over the decline in ratio of girls to boys and suggested making laws more stringent to check pre-natal sex selection and female foeticide in the country.
"Sex ratio is declining in the country every year due to female foeticide. We had suggested certain amendments in the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (prohibition of sex selection) Act, 1994, three years ago but nothing has so far been done....The Act should be more stringent," Chairperson of National Commission for Women Girija Vyas said.
She was addressing a conference organised jointly by National Human Rights Commission and National Commission for Women on 'Pre-natal sex selection in India:Issues, Concerns and Action'.
Vyas underlined that there are many "lacunae" in the Act and the rate of conviction is "very low".
"Under the Act, punishment is very less. There is no provision for police intervention or third party intervention under the Act," she said.
The NCW chief noted that "abortion is allowed in extraordinary situation but there is no such distinction (in practice). Not a single state, even Kerala, is spared (where incidents of female foeticide do not occur)."
Practice of female foeticide is still continuing in many states including several districts of Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat and Rajasthan. None of the health clinics have been found to be "upto the mark" even in the national capital, she said.
Addressing the conference, NHRC chairperson Justice K G Balakrishnan lamented that there is no law in the country to address the basic regulatory requirements for opening a hospital.
"Unfortunately in India, there are no effective provision for opening a clinic, a health centre, even a hospital. There is no law to address the basic things, fundamental (regulatory) requirements for opening a hospital," he said.
"Clinics should be periodically inspected by authorised officials. There should be some provision that clinic could always be managed by some senior doctors.... These things can bring change to a great extent," Balakrishnan suggested.
He said that laws to curb female foeticide and sex selection practices are not implemented properly.
"PCPDT Act, 1994 has penal provisions. Unfortunately, police are unable to detect such crimes as those cases are always collusive in nature," the former Chief Justice of India said.
Balakrishnan noted that there was need for better implementation of the existing laws and change in the "mindset" of society for checking the declining sex ration in the country or else crime against women, like trafficking, would rise in the country.
Underlining the role of doctors, he suggested that they should be "a little more active and sensitive" towards "this social evil".
Doctors "must" give correct advice to those who approach them for pre-natal diagnostic test and abortion of female foetus, he said.
"But, unfortunately, nature of man to accumulate more wealth creates problems," he added.

http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?696956

Should a woman marry her rapist?

Should a woman marry her rapist?

KALPANA SHARMA , Sep 15, 2010, 12.21pm IST
When a rapist offers to marry the victim, one would think it's the perfect solution. But isn't this victimization of the victim all over again?
You normally don't expect a girl to marry her rapist but in a recent case in West Delhi, a woman wanted to marry the guy who allegedly raped her. This is obviously not a one off case and definitely brings to limelight the existence of an insensitive society that doesn't think twice before putting a girl up for trial, once again.
This March, K G Balakrishnan, the then Chief Justice of India had said, "A woman should be allowed to have a baby out of rape and/or marry the man and drop the rape charge if she so wishes." But most don't call the step justified. Kavita, an NGO worker stresses on the point. "The girl has already been wronged once. And to add to the misery, her predator neatly escapes the consequences of the crime by simply marrying the girl. You never know if this practice catches on, rapists might resort to such techniques on any girl he fancies. This is just not done."
The rapist also takes advantage of the social stigma that no man will accept a woman who has been raped. A source from National Commission of Women reveals, "We have bailed out some small town girls in the past. We make sure that mindless community panchayat decisions are challenged. But in some cases it gets very difficult when the girl's family and the girl herself agree to marry the rapist." But the girl should be given her due, and allowed to make a free decision without having to succumb to the social attitudes.
Psychologist Seema Hingoranny agrees, "A woman should never marry her rapist. Rape is a big trauma and the victim requires intensive therapy to get out of it. Some people get married because of their insecurity and the stigma that no one will marry them. But these girls barely forgive the rapist." She goes on to add, "Also, you cannot completely ignore the psychological status of the man. Someone who can commit such a heinous crime has something incorrect in his character and such marriages can never work. It could lead to more violence. I am totally against this idea. Instead of getting her married to the rapist, family and the government should think of ways to rehabilitate her."
Some have issues with its TV potrayal too. Says an activist, "Indian television has replicated these real life incidents into reel life. What they don't understand is that this could lead to serious repurcussions. TV channels should ensure that they are not propogating the act by showing victims marrying their rapists."
The aftermarks of the incident that are so deeply etched in the girl's mind never let her get over the trauma. And the dilution of punishment for the rapist should not be tolerated!
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/Should-a-woman-marry-her-rapist/articleshow/6558340.cms#ixzz0zbwFGHmy

NHRC chairperson favours continuance of death penalty

NHRC chairperson favours continuance of death penalty

Prakash Kumar New Delhi, Aug 1 (PTI) Amid continuing debate over whether death penalty should be abolished in India, NHRC chairperson K G Balakrishnan has favoured continuance of the provision which has a "deterrent effect" in a country where various types of crimes are on rise. The former Chief Justice of India noted that the Capital punishment is awarded in the "rarest of rare" cases and there are adequate safeguards provided in the law in this regard. Balakrishnan, while expressing his "personal opinion" and not the view of NHRC on the issue, said India has not reached the stage where death punishment could be abolished. "It is not proper for NHRC to give an opinion on death sentence. But, if you ask me personally... I feel personally that the death penalty should continue. It has got a very great deterrent effect on the society," he told PTI in an interview. When pointed out that several countries have abolished death penalty, he said, "In India, different types of crimes are on increase. The death penalty will have a deterrent effect on the people." His comments come amid a debate as to whether death penalty should be abolished in India. The remarks also assume significance as the government is still considering whether or not to execute the death penalty awarded to Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru. Guru's mercy petition, along with 24 others facing death sentence, is pending with the government. Human rights groups, including the Amnesty, have been strongly pushing for repealing of the death sentence from the Indian Statute. In India, death sentence was last carried out in 2004 when one Dhananjay Chatterjee was hanged for rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl in Kolkata. "If you analyse (the cases), many of those who were given death penalty really deserved it in the cases imposed (on them)," Balakrishnan underlined. On the safeguards, the former Chief Justice said the Supreme Court has "enunciated" a principle that death penalty should be imposed in the "rarest of the rare cases only". Explaining, he said a convict is sentenced, after proper trial, by a lower court. The conviction can be challenged in a High Court and finally in the Supreme Court.Even then, a convict can seek mercy from the President. Balakrishnan pointed out that for the last several years, no criminal has been executed but favoured continuance of the provision in the Statute.

http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/nhrc-chairperson-favours-continuance-of-death-penalty/191943.html