Editorial 1. Census matters
Context:
- India aspires to be a $10 trillion economy by 2035. To achieve this, conducting population Census, due in 2021 but postponed indefinitely because of Covid, is necessary.
- India has a long history of conducting Census without interruption from 1881 with the rare exception of Assam in 1981 and Jammu Kashmir in 1991 due to sociopolitical unrest and secessionist movements. A regular Census at the national and sub-national levels has been a matter of pride for India. It has to be continued until India achieves a fool-proof civil registration system and a dynamic National Population Register.
why conducting a Census has become a prerequisite for economic development?
- There are many reasons why conducting a Census has become a prerequisite for economic development.
- At present, the biggest challenge facing demographers, planners, and other stakeholders is how to estimate the district population the district which is the basic administrative unit for governing, planning, and executing government projects and schemes
- In the absence of updated Census data, demographers estimate the annual population count at the district level using past Census information for the intercensal or postcensal period.
- to estimate the population of a district in India in the year 2015, the district-level population growth rate between the 2001 and 2011 Census.
- Such demographic exercises give reasonably fair estimates when the year of population estimation is within the range of a maximum of 10 years.
- Beyond this period, estimations can be erroneous, particularly at the district level due to dynamic patterns of population components, among them fertility, mortality and migration
Transforming districts requires the updated data for better planning and implementation of welfare scheme:
- Many districts of India are experiencing a faster demographic transition with varying fertility and mortality rates.
- So using the growth rate of 2001-2011 for the period after 2021 becomes more of an assumption-based model than a model that reflects empirical reality.
- Covid-19 further makes the situation complex as it impacts the fertility and mortality situation in the country.
- Since many states (and districts) lack a complete civil registration system with a full count of birth and death data, demographers face enormous challenges in providing population counts at the district level.
- For the above reasons, in several instances, estimates tend to be far off the mark, especially for newly formed districts and states.
Migration data collected in the Census has great implications for economic activities and social harmony
- As India progresses economically, the pattern of migration within the country, within states as well as outside the country has been changing in unprecedented ways.
- For instance, even in smaller towns and cities, job patterns have changed.
- The migration pattern in India in the present decade is very different from what the data in Census 2001 and 2011 suggest. Hence, in the absence of Census data, it is difficult to draw conclusions about migration in India.
Census helps in better understanding of diversity of India
- the Census counts everyone across regions, classes, creeds, religions, languages, castes, marital status, differently-abled populations, occupation patterns etc.
- Most national-level surveys such as NFHS and NSSO do not have representative data at the population subgroup level, unlike the Census.
- The existence of numerous faiths and languages as well as the expansion or extinction of such communities will be known only via population Census.
Conclusion:
“…Denying a woman right to say no to medical termination of pregnancy and fasten her with the responsibility of motherhood would amount to denying her human right to live with dignity as she has a right in relation to her body which includes saying Yes or No to being a mother,”
|
(‘Minor R Thr. Mother H vs. State NCT of Delhi & Another’) In doing so, the Delhi High Court has gone beyond the 24 weeks’ upper limit in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2022 case of ‘X vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT’
|
Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment
- On September 29, a bench led by Justice D Y Chandrachud, now Chief Justice of India (CJI), expanded the scope of reproductive rights and bodily autonomy under the MTP Act, 1971 to groups such as unmarried women, transgenders, and genderqueer groups.
- “…We use the term “woman” in this judgment as including persons other than cis-gender women who may require access to safe medical termination of their pregnancies
- The court allowed abortions in cases where the pregnancy was 20-24 weeks old, and said it was unconstitutional to discriminate between married and unmarried women in this regard “all women are entitled to the benefit of safe and legal abortions”.
- The court also underlined that “the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy on a woman’s body as well as her mind cannot be understated”.
Jan. 20 Bombay HC judgment
- Building on the aspects of a woman’s “reproductive autonomy”, “reproductive choice”, and “right to dignity” in the apex court’s 2022 judgment, Bombay High Court on January 20 this year went a step further and allowed the termination of a 33-week-old pregnancy on account of severe abnormalities in the foetus.
- A two-judge Bench of Justices Gautam S Patel and S G Dige in ‘ABC vs. State of Maharashtra’ said that it is a woman’s right and not that of the medical board to choose whether she wants to go ahead with a pregnancy with foetal abnormalities.
- “Given a severe foetal abnormality, the length of the pregnancy does not matter,” the court said.
- The court went against the recommendations of the government hospital’s medical board which had warned against aborting on account of delay, and the foetus being in an advanced “gestational stage”.
- The court reasoned that doing so would condemn the foetus to a substandard life and force a “traumatic parenthood” on the petitioner’s family.
- In their judgments delivered within days of each other, the Bombay and Delhi HCs allowed exemptions that went beyond the permissible confines of Rule 3B of the Rules annexed to the MTP Act, which specifies seven categories of women eligible for termination between 20-24 weeks, including survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest, minors, women with disabilities or mental illness, etc.
Way forward/New case before SC
- The question of striking a balance between a woman’s reproductive choice and the foetus’s right to life came back before the Supreme Court last week after a 20-year-old unmarried college student approached it seeking termination of her 29-week-old pregnancy. (‘P vs. Union of India & Another’)
- On January 23, a three-judge Bench of the court headed by CJI Chandrachud requested Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati to interact with the woman after examining a report prepared by a medical board constituted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). “The team of doctors at AIIMS has suggested that the petitioner may consult the Psychiatry OPD at AIIMS for counseling,” the court said.
- On January 19, the court had asked AIIMS to constitute the medical board to examine if the safe termination of the petitioner’s 29-week-old pregnancy was possible without any danger to her life and wellbeing.
- The report’s findings pointed to a high possibility of the foetus being alive at the time of being born. “Even if she wants to abort right now, it has to be a cesarean and there is an 80 per cent chance that the child will be born alive. They say once a child is born even by C-section, it will have to be sent for neonatal care,” the CJI said during the hearing.
- However, the petitioner stood firm in her resolve to terminate the pregnancy, following which the court suggested that the ASG should interact with her. The matter has now been adjourned to February 2 on account of the petitioner’s upcoming exams.