The improvement in India's Sex Ratio at Birth reflects both regulation and social change. Discuss with reference to the PC&PNDT Act and Beti Bachao Beti Padhao.

India's Sex Ratio at Birth (SRB) rose from 898 (2014–16) to 918 (2022–24) per SRS [1]. HMIS data show a similar rise, from 918 (2014–15) to 929 (2024–25) [2][3]. The gain comes from two tracks working together. The law cuts the supply of sex selection, and social change reduces the demand for it.

Regulation: PC&PNDT Act, 1994

• Wider legal net: A PIL and the fall in Child Sex Ratio in Census 2001 led to the 2003 amendment. It brought pre-conception sex selection and ultrasound machines under the Act [4].
• Enforcement powers: Appropriate Authorities have civil-court powers to search, seize and seal machines and records. A service provider can get up to three years in jail [4].
• Keeping up with technology: In 2026, MoHFW and I4C (MHA) began enforcing the Section 22 ban on advertisements online through the Sahyog Portal [1].

Social change: Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (BBBP)

• Reducing demand: BBBP was launched at Panipat in 2015. It targets son preference and the falling child sex ratio [2][3].
• Changing mindsets: It focuses on how families see the girl child. It works alongside Sukanya Samriddhi and PMMVY [2][3].
• Awareness and IEC: MoHFW also pairs strict enforcement with campaigns that stress the equal value of the girl child [1].

Why neither works alone

• Weak deterrence: Over about 25 years, 3,158 court cases were filed under the Act. Only 617 ended in conviction [5]. So the law alone cannot explain the gain.
• Demand persists: Sex selection is moving to portable devices and social media [1]. Son preference has changed form, not disappeared.
• Gaps between states: In 2016–18, Rajasthan and Maharashtra had the lowest SRB and also the most pending cases [5].

Law (PC&PNDT) → less supply ┐
                            ├→ higher SRB
BBBP + IEC → less demand    ┘

Fig: Two-track approach to sex selection

The rise in SRB is therefore a joint result: the law limits access to sex selection while BBBP changes attitudes. To keep the gains, the courts need to decide cases faster, and states need complete online registration of centres [5]. BBBP should also deepen its work with communities. Together these would advance the equality guaranteed by Article 15 and SDG 5.