A shocking case of falling Child Sex Ratio in Uttarakhand तो क्या 2021 में घटते बच्चियों के अनुपात में उत्तराखंड होगा सबसे आगे?

A shocking case of falling Child Sex Ratio in Uttarakhand तो क्या 2021 में घटते बच्चियों के अनुपात में उत्तराखंड होगा सबसे आगे?

Uttarakhand may be claiming to be fastest growing state in the country, but the fact is that it has performed badly when it comes to a major social parameter of the Child Sex Ratio (CSR) where the state has been a laggard. If the state government fails to wake up, the CSR would decline to a little over 800 girls per 1,000 boys by 2021, worst in the country and a matter of shame for every Uttarakhandi. Here are the details of what is going wrong in Uttarakhand…


n a shocking development, a Union government study has found that the child sex ratio in Uttarakhand is all set to fall to 800 girls per 1000 boys by Census 2021. And it is not all, the situation of girl child in the state in terms of implementing various government schemes for them is also in a bad shape. After evaluating the report, Delhi-based Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) has now filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) seeking its intervention in the case.

In its report — The State of Female Foeticide in Uttarakhand, the ACHR has stated that as per the latest reports of the Annual Health Survey (AHS) conducted by the Registrar General & Census Commissioner of India, child sex ratio (CSR) i.e. number of girls per 1000 boys, is all set to fall drastically to a little over 800 by 2021 census.

The sex ratio at birth (SRB) as per the AHS was respectively 861 in 2011-2012 and 867 during 2012-2013 in Uttarakhand. If under-five mortality rate (U5MR) of 48 deaths per 1,000 births in India is taken into account in Uttarakhand context, the CSR in Uttarakhand would have reduced to 813 in 2011-2012 and 819 in 2012-2013. Uttarakhand has the 7th lowest Child Sex Ratio (CSR) in the age group of 0-6 years among 35 States/UTs of India as per 2011 census with CSR of 890 girls per thousand boys.  

As per the statement of Health Minister of India Mr J P Nadda before Parliament last year, during 2009 to December 2014, not a single conviction was secured under the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (PCPNDT Act), 1994 in Uttarakhand. 

On the implementation of the Nanda Devi Kanya Yojana (NDKY) launched in 2009, and since renamed as Hamari Beti Hamara Abhiman (HBHA) in 2014, the report stated that Uttarakhand govt failed to achieve its primary objectives to reduce gender imbalance in child sex ratio, prevent female foeticide and provide social and economic security to the girl child. The scheme itself is designed not to have any impact.

The NDKY is extended only to Below Poverty Line (BPL) families while the Above Poverty Line (APL) families who use and can afford sex selective abortion are completely left out. Even for the BPL families, the NDKY covered only 4.97% of the BPL families.

As per the BPL survey conducted by the Government of Uttarakhand during 2011-2012, there were a total of 6,19,718 BPL families but as per the Uttarakhand government’s own admission, in 5 years from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2015, only 30,830 girls or 4.97% of the BPL families were given benefits under the NDKY.

In terms of those born, as per 2011 census, a total of 2,50,803 females in the age group of 0–2 years or an average of 83,601 girls are born annually in Uttarakhand. If only 30,830 beneficiaries were extended benefits under the NDKY from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2015, it implies that 6,166 girls were given benefits annually against the birth of 83,601 girls i.e. 7.37% of the girls born annually.

There are serious doubts whether actual beneficiaries are benefiting at all under the NDKY. The utilization certificates (UCs) of the NDKY provided to Asian Centre for Human Rights by the authorities under the Right to Information Act seem to have been prepared only to be shared under the RTI Act. Except one UC submitted by District Program Officer (DPO), Almora, all other UCs have no date, reference number and official stamp. In the absence of all these, authenticity of the UCs is highly doubtful. ACHR has filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission of India to address the findings of the report.

The ACHR report can be accessed by going to the link —


Write to us at Uttarakhandpanorama@gmail.com

Follow us: UttarakhandPanorama@Facebook and UKPANORAMA@Twitter


No Comments Yet!

You can be first to comment this post!

Leave a Reply

4 × 5 =