Himmat Mahila Samooh vs. Union of India & Ors. (WP (C) 1262/2014), High Court for Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
The Haryana Seventh CRM Report found below-budget spending of 34.59% for family planning, and 34.12% for ASHAs in the first two quarters of 2013-2014 and recommended better utilization of funds, including spacing incentives for ASHAs. Concerning male health workers, according to the DLHS-4 for Haryana, only 58.2% of sub-centres have a male health worker. The DLHS-4 for Haryana shows that women lack awareness of the full range of contraceptive choices. 2012-2013 NRHM Programme Implementation Plan (PIP) for Haryana, annexure on family planning shows just 2 of a proposed 42 family planning counselors have been appointed in the state. Only 93 of a goal of 320 medical officers have been trained on post partum intrauterine contraceptive device (PPIUCD) insertion, and only 275 of 460 medical officers and 421 of 870 auxiliary nurse midwives (ANMs) have been trained on interval intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) insertion. In November 2014, activists from HRLN conducted field visits in Faridabad and Anangpur Districts to verify the Respondents’ claims. The fact-finding concludes that little has changed on the ground. Women do not have access to contraceptive information and services in violation of their fundamental rights. Time-Line: March 2013- The Centre for Health, Ethics, and Technology at Jindal Global Law School publishes Voices from the Field: Access to Contraceptive Services and Information in the State of Haryana, India. November 2013- Advocate Veena Kumari files the PIL in the High Court at Chandigarh. 24 January 2014: High Court order to the Respondents to reply and granted permission to return to the Court if fundamental rights violations continue. February 2014: State reply to Petitioner. February 2014: HRLN fact-finding in Mewat District. 21 November 2014: HRLN fact-finding in Anangpur, Faridabad Districts. Orders: On 24 January 2014, the High Court ordered the Respondents to “examine the issue on the basis of the material set out in the petition…and take a considered decision. The Court gave the Petitioner leave to approach the Court if fundamental rights violations persist.