The central government has presented to the Supreme Court that it is “unequivocally” against forcing people to have only a certain number of children in an attempt to control the population.
In its affidavit to the superior court, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) held that the Indian Family Welfare Program gives couples the right to decide their family size without any obligation.
In response to a PIL from defender Ashwini Upadhyay, the ministry has rejected the need to have a mandatory two-child rule or frame a specific law on limiting the size of families in the country.
After the Delhi High Court rejected his guilty plea, Upadhyay submitted a motion to the Supreme Court to introduce a population control law. Upadhyay has said that the population explosion is more dangerous than the explosion of a bomb and that the constitutional rights to clean air, clean water, health, livelihoods and education cannot be guaranteed to all citizens without controlling the population.
But the MoHFW has sought the dismissal of Upadhyay’s petition, stating that the central government cannot introduce or promote authorized or legislative methods to control the population.
“The Family Welfare Program in India is voluntary in nature, allowing couples to decide their family size and adopt the family planning methods that best suit them, according to their choice, without any obligation,” says the affidavit of the ministry.
He said that India is a signatory to the Program of Action (POA) of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which is unequivocally against coercion in family planning. “In fact, international experience shows that any coercion to have a certain number of children is counterproductive and generates demographic distortions,” the ministry explained.
Furthermore, he noted that there has been a steady decline in the total fertility rate (TFR), suggesting that couples do not want more than two children in the family.
The affidavit also relied on 2001-2011 census data to demonstrate the steepest decline in the 10-year growth rate among Indians in 100 years.
“2001-2011 was the first decade of the last 100 years that not only had added a smaller population compared to the previous one, but also recorded the steepest drop in the decennial growth rate of 21.54% in 1991-2001 to 17.64% in 2001-2011 ”, he emphasized.
The ministry said the TFR, which was 3.2 at the time the 2000 National Population Policy was adopted, has dropped substantially to 2.2 under the 2018 Sample Registration System.
“The desired fertility in India according to the National Family Health Survey IV is only 1.8 compared to the actual fertility of 2.2 that prevailed at that time, indicating that couples, on average, do not want more than two children. Furthermore, up to 25 of the 36 states / UT have already reached the replacement fertility level of 2.1 or less, ”added the MoHFW.
The ministry stated that the National Population Policy 2000 and the National Health Policy 2017 are guiding documents to prioritize the role of the government in the configuration of health systems in all its dimensions and the achievement of a TFR of 2.1 by 2025 .
Regarding Upadhyay’s request to issue the necessary directive to state governments, the MoHFW has said that such instructions cannot be issued since “public health” is a state issue and it is the prerogative of the respective state government to implement the schemes provided by the central government. according to prescribed guidelines.
A SC bank, headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, had requested a response from MoHFW in January, which has now been submitted. However, a date for the next hearing has not yet been set.
Upadhyay, speaking to HT, regretted the position taken by the central government. “India now has a population of 150 million rupees and it is clear from the number of Aadhaar cards manufactured. But this affidavit seems to sidestep the real issues. Also legally, the affidavit does not note that Entry 20A on the Concurrent List specifically mentions population control and family planning. How can the Center say now that it lacks the power to enact laws on population control? I ask.
.
