Delhi HC orders for entitlements to Below Poverty Line Women within 6 weeks

11 January 2013, NEW DELHI

In a contempt hearing initiated by the Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), the Delhi High Court gave the Union of India and the NCT of Delhi “a final opportunity” to fully implement the Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) and National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS) within six weeks.  If the NCT Delhi fails to fulfill its obligations by 7 March 2013, the Respondents will have to answer to the Court. The contempt petition emerges from the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Laxmi Mandal vs. Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital & Ors. (W.P. (C) 8852/2008).  In its landmark decision, the Delhi High Court became the first national level court to hold that maternal mortality is a violation of a woman’s fundamental right to life. The petition outlines the circumstances leading to the preventable maternal death of Shanti Devi and the degrading conditions under which Fatema delivered her daughter, Alisha.  The High Court passed extensive orders to award compensation to the families and to ensure meaningful implementation of government schemes for Below Poverty Line women.  To date, the Respondents have not complied with these orders.

Broadly, JSY establishes cash incentives for delivery care and NMBS provides Rs. 500 to all pregnant women 8-12 weeks prior to delivery.  Because the Government of Delhi has failed to implement these schemes, homeless pregnant and lactating women like Fatema and Priya Kale, have been unable to access the government entitlements that provide them with the minimum nutritional and financial support they need to survive.

The original Writ Petition,Laxmi Mandal vs. Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital & Ors. (W.P. (C) 8852/2008), details grave violations of Shanti Devi and Fatema’s fundamental rights. Shanti Devi had no choice but to carry a dead fetus in her womb for 5 days, as multiple facilities refused to treat her.  She only received medical care after the Delhi High Court intervened. While the High Court considered the petition, Shanti Devi became pregnant again, and died after giving birth to a pre-mature baby. The baby, Archana, survived and currently lives with a neighboring family. Fatema delivered her daughter, Alisha, in full public view under a tree in Jangpura, New Delhi. In both cases, the government failed to provide the women with their financial or nutritional entitlements under myriad Union of India sponsored schemes. The Court ultimately found that the Respondents violated both Shanti Devi and Fatema’s fundamental rights to life and health under the Constitution.  In addition to providing compensation to both Shanti Devi’s family and to Fatema, the Court ordered the Respondents to comply with a 2007 Supreme Court order directing all state governments and Union Territories to implement both the NMBS and JSY schemes.

HRLN will continue to pursue this matter until the most marginalized women in Delhi can fully realize their right to healthy and dignified, pregnancy, delivery, and post-partum period.

For more information, please contact:
Kerry McBroom, Director, Reproductive Rights Unit, HRLN (+91 9650316596)
or
Advocate Jayshree Satpute (+91 9871155098)

Read the order here

Supreme Court summons health secretaries of 7 states over female foeticide, infanticide

Concerned over the drastic drop in the girl child ratio across the country, the Supreme Court on Tuesday sought response from seven worst performing States and summoned their health secretaries. The Court wanted them to explain action taken by them against offenders who violated the PNDT Act that prohibits pre-natal sex determination.

The average count of the girl child (0-6 years) has dropped to 914 per 1,000 boys as per the Census 2011 from a relatively high level of 927 in the the 2001 Census. The apex bench of Justices KS Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra noted that the ration was particularly dismal in in Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra and Delhi.

Issuing notice to the respective State Governments to respond by February 12, the bench directed the respective Health Secretaries to remain present in Court with statistics explaining action taken under the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act 1994.

Drawing a direct link between the fall in the female child ratio with the prevailing mindset to have a boy child, the bench said, "Society as a whole is not accepting equality between boy and girl." Attacking the superstition that hell awaits those who failed to conceive a boy, the bench added, "There has to be a change in this mindset."
The Voluntary Health Association of Punjab, which filed the PIL in apex court to highlight serious violations of PNDT Act, stated that when it came to matching the girl child ratio with that of boys, the above seven States/UTs fared the worst. "Any figure below 900 girls per 1000 boys is to be viewed seriously," said senior counsel Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the NGO.
In Rajasthan, for instance, the ratio of female child was 909 in the previous census and  dropped to 883 in the 2011 count. Uttar Pradesh also recorded a drop  from 916 to 899, Bihar 942 to 933, and Delhi 868 to 867.  Maharashtra  witnessed a drastic slip from 913 to 883 in a decade, while e Punjab and Haryana recorded an increase from 798 to 846 and 819 to 830 respectively.
Three other states Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh, too fared badly on the census list.
In order to ascertain the effective implementation of the PNDT Act, the Court asked the Health Secretaries to present statistics on the number of persons booked under the Act since its inception, prosecutions pending and convictions achieved.
Gonsalves pointed out that prosecution figure was very low and only few cases yielded conviction. While the law provides for three years sentence, seldom do courts impose it as in majority cases, accused were let off with fine. Thus the Act failed to be a deterrent against female foeticide as intended by the legislature, Gonsalves said. He even accused the Centre of not conducting periodic reviews of state agencies under the Act, meant to supervise registration of clinics and centres conducting pre-natal diagnosis.

Supreme Court Issues Notices in Public Interest Litigation Regarding Unsafe and Unethical Sterilizations

2 April 2012

DELHI- Senior Counsel Colin Gonsalves appeared before the Supreme Court in  Devika Biswas vs. Union of India and Ors. (W.P. (C) 81 of 2012), and the Court was pleased to issue notices to the Centre and every state in this Public Interest Litigation filed by the Human Rights Law Network. 

Petitioner and health rights activist Devika Biswas revealed the gruesome details of a January 2012 sterilization camp at the Kaparfora Government Middle School, Araria District in a February 2012 fact-finding report. With the explicit permission of the State Health Society,an NGO and a private doctor used the government middle school as an operating theater for at least 53 sterilization surgeries on poor, dalit, and scheduled caste women. In clear violation of Government guidelines and basic human rights, the doctor performed the surgeries at night, under torchlight. During the two hours he was operating, the doctor did not wash his hands, change gloves, or wear a surgical gown and cap. After their surgeries, untrained NGO workers placed the women on straw paddy provided by the families. The doctor operated on one pregnant woman, Jitni Devi, who miscarried days after her surgery. The doctor and NGO staff left three women profusely bleeding, including Saraswati Devi, who spent 8 days recovering in the hospital. Most of the women from the camp have had to seek costly private care. None of the women were counseled. 

The horrific human rights violations extend beyond these events in Bihar. Doctors and health facilities across the county routinely flaunt the ethical and procedural guidelines prescribed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Constitutional obligations, and international norms. The Public Interest Litigation specifically outlines examples of coerced and unsafe sterilizations in Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan.   

This Public Interest Litigation sets forth the urgent need for an independent organization like the National Alliance for Maternal Health and Human Rights to investigate nationwide compliance with national guidelines, for all states to obtain informed consent as per National Guidelines, for all states to file status reports on compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions in Ramakant Rai (W.P. 209/2003) and the National Guidelines, and for compensation for the victims.

About the Petitioner: Devika Biswas has been working as a health rights activist with the Bihar Voluntary Health Association since 1989. She has published articles on the two-child norm in the book, Empowerment and Coercion, and on the conditions of health scenario from citizens’ perspective (published by the Centre for Health and Social Justice, New Delhi). In 2011, the Petitioner carried out a Rapid Assessment of the Health Programme in Bihar (forthcoming publication by CHSJ in Collaboration with SRM University, Chennai, UNFPA, ND). After  a fact-finding mission on in her native district of Araria, Ms. Biswas felt compelled to file this petition to ensure that sterilizations nation-wide are conducted as per the legal norms and to see that the victims in Bihar receive compensation for their injuries.

Feel free to contact HRLN if you would like a copy of the petition. 

The Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) is a collective of lawyers and social activists dedicated to the use of the legal system to advance human rights in India and the sub-continent. To learn more visit hrln.org.

Kerry McBroom
Director, Reproductive Rights Unit
Human Rights Law Network
Mob:  9650316596    
Email: kmcbroom.hrln@gmail.com

Denial of rations to BPL people denial of Right to Food, Right to Life: Delhi HC

NEW DELHI: In another landmark interim order, Justice S Muralidhar of the Delhi High Court reinforced the need for increased delivery and oversight of life-saving food and maternal health entitlements to the vulnerable populations in the Nation’s Capital.  The petition, Premlata w/o Ram Sagar & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi, W.P. Civ. 7687/2010, involves six destitute pregnant and lactating women who reside in Nangloi, a western slum of Delhi, and have been denied food rations and reproductive and child health benefits since at least August 2009.  During the pendency of litigation, numerous issues were brought to the Court’s attention underlining serious problems with issuance and renewal of ration cards and delivery of health benefits under the Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) and National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS). Petitioners also placed on record a copy of the Samajik Suvidha Sangam Survey commissioned by the Delhi Government showing that 55 percent of Delhi's poor and vulnerable populations remain “un-carded", i.e. without a ration card.

Numerous interim orders have directed the Delhi Government to conduct “camps” where aggrieved card holders have had their ration cards sorted and reauthorized, increase monitoring and delivery of rations to Fair Price Shops, constitute a grievance redressal hotline, and ensure functionality of vigilance committee. The Union of India has also been ordered to pay Rs 5,000 to each of the Petitioners for delay in payment of financial assistance under NMBS.

During the last hearing, when questioned as to the present procedure for issuing new BPL applications, the Government acknowledged that 'no fresh BPL cards' are being issued by the Food & Supplies Department due to a 'maximum limit of BPL cards' fixed by a decision of the Union of India and Cabinet of Government of Delhi. Taking cognizance of this action as inherently unconstitutional, the Court stated:

“10. This Court is unable to appreciate how the Capital city of Delhi, with a growing population and constant influx of a large number of migrants can abide by a ‘cap’ on BPL cards.  With growing persons in need of BPL cards, there cannot be any ‘caps’ imposed by the Central Government/Planning Commission which disables the GNCTD from proceeding to issue fresh BPL cards.  Denial of a rational card to a BPL person is virtually a denial of his or her right to food and thereby the right to life under the Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The Delhi Government and Union of India were ordered to jointly meet within four weeks time to resolve the denial of fresh BPL cards for eligible persons.  The Court further expressed concern "that apart from the Petitioners who have approached this Court there could be many others similarly placed in need of redress" and ordered a government official be appointed to address all remaining grievances within the community.  The matter is next listed for 27th July, 2011.

Premlata holds great promise in ensuring a more transparent and efficient delivery system of rations to India's poor, and reinforce the life-saving link between access to food and reproductive health and safe motherhood. A copy of the 13.05.11 order is attached.

Contact:
Sukti Dhital
Reproductive Rights Unit
Human Rights Law Network
sfdhital@gmail.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

PRESS RELEASE
6/1/11

On 23rd December 2010, Justice Muralidhar of the Delhi High Court issued an interim order recognizing the injustice embedded in India's Public Distribution Scheme. The case, Premlata w/o Ram Sagar & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi, W.P. Civ. 7687/2010, involves six destitute pregnant and lactating women who reside in Nangloi a western slum of Delhi, and have been denied their constitutional rights to food and reproductive and child health benefits since at least August 2009. Premlata underlines the inextricable connection between nutritional & food security and maternal health, and the need for increased monitoring and oversight of the government's Fair Price Shops (FPS). The Court ordered the government to organize a "camp" where all aggrieved card holders may have their ration cards sorted and reauthorized within 10 days time, and ordered the Asst. Food Commissioner to undertake an "intensive survey" of the FPSs' in the region and submit a status report as to his findings. As Justice Muralidhar explained,

"The Court is of the view that the monitoring of the fair price shops has to be tightened and poor persons ought not to be denied their entitlement to rations on account of non-functioning FPS . . . [the] purpose of this survey is to ensure that the FPSs function in a proper manner and the card holders are not deprived of the rations and other benefits to which they are
entitled. "

The case holds great promise in ensuring a more transparent and efficient delivery system of rations to India's poor, and reinforce the life-saving link between food and reproductive health services in ensuring safe motherhood. A copy of the order is attached.


Maternal mortality and morbidity is a global human rights concern. The maternal mortality ratio in India is higher than in 127 countries, including the neighboring states of Bangladesh, China, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Through litigation, advocacy, and public education, the Human Rights Law Network's Reproductive Rights Unit uses the legal system to obtain government accountability for reproductive rights violations, including preventable pregnancy-related deaths and disabilities.

For further details about the case, or to learn more about our work, please contact:

Sukti Dhital
Human Rights Law Network
Reproductive Rights Unit
Mob: 9711487238
sfdhital@gmail.com
www.hrln.org

HRLN Mumbai gets landmark judgement in regard to Reproductive Rights of women

Ariya Khan went into labour on 29 January 2009 but was turned away by two private clinics, she delivered at Borivili Railway Station.Adv. Gayatri Singh argued that it should be mandatory for hospitals and private institutions to admit women who go into emergency labour.

HRLN gets remarkable judgement in a case of Reproductive Rights

04/06/2010


In a historic decision the Delhi High Court ordered compensation for violation of constitutional and reproductive rights of two impoverished women. The judgment will have immense health policy implications in India, where a maternal death occurs every five minutes.

In the case of Laxmi Mandal vs Deen Dayal Hari Nager Hospital & Ors W.P. 8853/2008 Justice Muralidhar instructed the State of Haryana, to pay compensation of Rs 2.4 lakhs to the family of Shanti Devi who passed away during child birth on 20 January this year. The Court found the Respondents in violation of Shanti Devi's right to life and health, reiterating that her death was preventable.

In the case of Jaitun v Maternity Home, MCD, Jangpura & Ors W.P. No. 10700/2009 High Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to pay Rs 50,000 compensation to Fatima for the violation of her fundamental rights by being compelled to give birth to her daughter Alisha under a tree, on account of the denial of basic medical services.

"These petitions are essentially about the protection and enforcement of the basic, fundamental and human right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. These petitions focus on two inalienable survival rights that form part of the right to life: the right to health (which would include the right to access and receive a minimum standard of treatment and care in public health facilities) and in particular the reproductive rights of the mother. The other right which calls for immediate protection and enforcement in the context of the poor is the right to food".

The Court underlined that the cases demonstrated a complete failure of the public health system and a failure in implementation of Government Schemes, including the National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS), Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) and Janani Soraksha Yojana (JSY) - a scheme designed to reduce maternal and neo-natal mortality by encouraging institutional delivery for poor pregnant women. The judgment further directed the Respondents to ensure that the payment of Rs 500, eight to twelve weeks prior to delivery to all Below Poverty Line (BPL) pregnant women to ensure their proper nutrition under the NMBS, be ensured as per Supreme Court Order in PUCL v UOI 196/2001, irrespective of age and number of previous births in all states in India.

"Both the cases point to the complete failure of the implementation of the schemes. With the women not receiving attention and care in the critical weeks preceding the expected dates of delivery, they were deprived of accessing minimum health care at either homes or at the public health institutions (.) It points to the failure of the referral system where a poor person who is sent to a private hospital cannot be assured of quality and timely health services."

Drawing on international law Justice Muralidhar underlined that women have the right to control their body and decide when they wish to conceive. The Court also pointed out that women carry the burden of poverty in that they have to prove their BPL status when trying to access health facilities and accordingly ordered that "no pregnant women be denied access to medical treatment regardless of her social economical status".

"There is no assurance of "portability" of the schemes across the states. In the present case, Shanti Devi traveled from Bihar to Haryana and then to Delhi. In Haryana she was clearly unable to access the public health services. At Delhi she had to once again show that she had a BPL card, and on being unable to do so, she was denied access to medical facilities. For the migrant workers this can pose a serious problem. Instructions will have to be issued to ensure that if a person is declared BPL in any state of the country and is availing of the public health services in any part of the country, such person should be assured of continued availability of such access to public health care services wherever such person moves."

"It may be difficult to quantify the actual loss suffered by either family as a result of the failure by the State Government to deliver the benefits under the schemes to each of these women during their pregnancies. What is clear in Shanti Devi's case is that the maternal mortality was clearly avoidable".

"In the case of Fatema soon after the baby was delivered, she required nutrition and supplements which were denied till the Court's intervention. Even the ICDS benefits were given only after the Court's intervention. It is well possible that but for the Court's intervention, the baby and the mother may have been deprived of the benefits which would have caused irreparable injury and possibly loss of life".

"It was not denied by learned counsel appearing for the Government of Haryana, the GNCTD as well as the Central Government that as of now there is no inbuilt component for reparations under the schemes. Given that the budget outlay of the schemes is in several hundreds of crores, it is indeed surprising that there is no inbuilt component for reparations"

The maternal mortality ratio (number of women dying per 100,000 live births) in India is higher than in 120 countries, including neighboring states of Bangladesh, China, Nepal and Sri Lanka. More than 117,000 women and girls die each year in India from largely preventable pregnancy- related causes. This is the highest number of maternal deaths in any country world-wide, which accounts for almost 25% of the global maternal death burden.

‘MERA HAQ’ (My Right): Surviving Pregnancy with Human Dignity

This photo exhibition, organised by Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), reveals the untold stories and daily toils of the most marginalised and vulnerable of India’s population; ‘the forgotten people’. It pays tribute to the thousands of Indian woman and girls who have lost their lives during pregnancy, and to the women who continue to suffer from a pregnancy related illness or disability.

The photographs, taken by social activists, provide an entry point into the lives, struggles and determination of people to live with dignity in India. Maternal mortality is not a human rights violation that occurs in isolation, rather it is the culmination of a multitude of rights denials which include: poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition, anaemia, child marriage and discrimination faced by marginalized/historically vulnerable groups, which is reflected in the disproportionately high levels of maternal deaths from the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribal community and young women under the age of 25.

For the last 21-years HRLN has consistently worked to ensure justice and accountability for victims of human rights abuses, by providing pro bono legal aid and empowering communities through legal advocacy and ‘know your rights materials’.

Photographic Exhibition Official Launch: 21st May at 6:30 p.m.          
(Runs till the 28th May 2010)
Venue: Alliance Française de Delhi, Art Gallery, 72 Lodi Estate, New Delhi

Check the Venue location on Google Map

RSVP
Marta Kasztelan
Human Rights Law Network
576 Masjid Road
Jangpura, New Delhi
 0091 11 2437 4501 ext 221
www.hrln.org
kasztelan.marta@gmail.com

Delhi High Court rules on Reproductive Rights Violations - Ground breaking judgment

In a ground breaking judgment postively impacting the Reproductive Rights of millions of women in India, Justice Muralidhar, Delhi High Court sought accountability for India's shamefully high levels of maternal deaths and maternal morbidity, ironically on International Women's Day.

Hearing two cases of Reproductive Rights violations, advocated by the Human Rights Law Network - Laxmi Mandal v NCT Delhi & Ors W.P. (c) 8853/2008, the victim Shanti Devi, a scheduled caste woman, living below the poverty line, was denied her reproductive rights and tragically lost her life minutes after she gave birth to a premature newborn; and in Jatuin v MCD Maternity Home MCD & Ors 10700/2009 involving a poor, homeless, young woman, after being denied emergency obstetric care was forced to publicly deliver her newborn child under a tree, minutes from India gate.

''The broad issues in these petitions are concerned with the reproductive rights of health as well as the rights of the newly born free treatment and care in government medical facilities essentially on the ground that they are persons below the poverty line. From what has transpired in these cases thus far it is plain that there are some schemes formulated by both the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi ('GNCTD') as well as the Central Government to address the issues. However, there appear to be no operation guidelines issued that can actually facilitate the accessing of free medical care by expectant mothers and the newly born babies, belonging to the below the poverty line category.

These petitions also raise a larger question as to the question as to the availability of free treatment and care anywhere in the country where these persons may be compelled to move due to some reason or the other. In other words, the Union of India will have to come out with a set of instruction,

in co-ordination with GNCTD in the instant care, to ensure that the entitlements to free medical treatment and care of persons below the poverty line is not denied merely on account of their having to move away.'' Said Justice S Muralidhar

Justice Muralidhar further directed the highly esteemed Doctor Prakasamma, Executive Director of the Academy of Nursing Studies and Women's Empowerment Research Studies to conduct a 'maternal audit with respect to the death of Shanti Devi. 'The remit of Dr M. Prakasamma will include examining the circumstances under which initially Shanti Devi, when she was admitted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital (Delhi) on 19th November 2008, was found to be carrying a dead foetus and the events subsequent.'

For further information, please contact Jameen Kaur  jameen.kaur@hrln.org

HRLN website www.hrln.org 


Photos attached:

No. 44 Kishan Mandal husband of Shanti Devi (maternal death) with his premature newborn daughter


Photo No. 61 Fatima with her daughter, (delivery under a public tree in May 2009).


Newborn only hours after her birth being held by her brother aged, 12 years old.





Click Here To Read Court Order in PDF