Balaji says sorry with ad but women’s panel frowns

Balaji created an ad based on the Commission’s script and sent it to them for clearance three weeks back. Now there’s another battle brewing. The Commission insists the ad should be telecast for three months before each episode of Kyunki Saas while Balaji wants it only for three episodes.

‘‘If they do as told, we may sympathetically consider the legal action in this case,’’ says Prabhavalkar. If not, she adds, Balaji is in for long-drawn-out litigation and all the adverse publicity that will accompany it.

Rajesh Pavithran, COO, Balaji Telefilms, to The Indian Express, ‘‘We didn’t make the ad under pressure from the Commission. Nor were we reporting to them like they are a client or something. It’s just that this is in public interest, so we decided to work in coordination with them.’’

The controversy has its origins in February 2002 when the offending episode of Kyunki Saas was aired on Star Plus. Foetal sex determination tests are banned under the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PNDT) Act, 1994.

‘‘The manner in which the characters in the serial were shown getting the test done, with the doctor saying, ‘Congratulations, it’s a boy’, it was made to seem as though this was a perfectly routine and legal thing to do,’’ says activist Sabu M George.

‘‘If they had included even a single dialogue in which some character pointed out that such tests were illegal, we may not have protested.’’

The Maharashtra Women’s Commission — spurred on by women’s organisations across India — approached the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and an FIR was lodged. George insists the apology telecast by Balaji is not sufficient reparation.

‘‘Who saw it? They need to do something that will effectively undo the damage they have done. Rampant abortions of female foetuses after sex-determination tests have resulted in dangerously imbalanced sex ratios in our country. Balaji has a social responsibility not to even indirectly encourage such practices.’’

Section 22 of the PNDT Act prohibits advertisements relating to sex determination tests.

Balaji’s lawyers initially reportedly argued with the Commission that it was not, however, illegal to portray fictitious characters conducting sex-determination tests. ‘‘That would be a narrow interpretation of the law,’’ says Supreme Court lawyer Anitha Shenoy.

‘‘Look at the spirit and intent of the Act. If you view the PNDT Act holistically and read it with the Indecent Representation of Women Act and Cable TV Networks Act, then what Balaji has done is illegal. We cannot afford to take a narrow view of the Act, given the social context.’’

This context is illustrated by the country’s skewed sex ratio.

According to the 2001 Census, India has only 933 females for every 1,000 males, as opposed to a world average of 986.

The imbalance is seen as the combined effect of female foeticide, female infanticide, malnutrition and poor healthcare for the female population.

Incidentally, the Maharashtra Women’s Commission now plans to seek an amendment to the PNDT Act clearly making fictitious portrayal of sex determination tests an offence.

Next time, they say, there should be no question marks.