The persistence of son preference in India is rooted in socio-economic structures rather than mere ignorance. Discuss, with reference to recent Supreme Court observations and NFHS-5 data.

Q. The persistence of son preference in India is rooted in socio-economic structures rather than mere ignorance. Discuss, with reference to recent Supreme Court observations and NFHS-5 data. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Supreme Court's June 2026 observation on the "deep-seated patriarchal preference" for a male child [1] suggests son preference survives not from lack of awareness, but from material incentives embedded in inheritance, marriage and old-age security.

Structural, not informational, roots - Patrilineal inheritance makes sons carriers of property and lineage; the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 granting daughters equal coparcenary rights was a structural correction, not an awareness campaign. - Dowry renders daughters an anticipated financial liability despite prohibition since 1961. - Absent universal old-age security, sons serve as social insurance, reinforced by ritual duties like antyesti.

What the Supreme Court read into it - In Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra (2026), the Court refused to treat Form F record deficiencies as clerical errors, noting sex selection persists "behind the curtains" and that strict enforcement of the PC&PNDT Act, 1994 [2] is needed until mentalities change [1]. - Enforcement itself is structurally weak: Appropriate Authorities are understaffed and reluctant to prosecute fellow practitioners — a gap MoHFW's national sensitisation meeting on strengthening the Act acknowledges [3].

NFHS-5 evidence against the "ignorance" thesis - Overall sex ratio crossed parity at 1,020 females/1,000 males, yet rural (1,037) exceeds urban (985) [4]. The wealthier, better-educated and technologically better-served segment records the worse ratio — literacy has not dissolved preference. - SRB improved from 819 (2016–18) to 917 (2021–23) [3], but several States remain below the national average [1] — progress is real yet geographically entrenched.

A qualified counterpoint: the small-family norm intensifies "a son at any cost," so awareness efforts under Beti Bachao Beti Padhao [5] retain value — but only alongside incentive change.

Son preference is best understood as a rational response to structures that penalise daughters; law suppresses the symptom while incentives must shift the cause. Pairing sustained PC&PNDT enforcement with property rights, pensions and girl-child savings would advance both Article 15's equality guarantee and SDG-5.

(~325 words)

Sources: 1. Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2026 INSC 635 (Supreme Court of India, 11 June 2026) — "deep-seated patriarchal preferences", "behind the curtains" sex selection, States below national SRB average, Form F holding 2. The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 — India Code — statutory prohibition on sex selection 3. National-Level Sensitization Meeting on Strengthening PC&PNDT Act, 1994 Implementation — PIB, MoHFW — SRB 819 (2016–18) to 917 (2021–23) per SRS 2023; enforcement-strengthening push 4. NFHS-5 (2019–21) India National Fact Sheet, MoHFW/IIPS — sex ratio 1,020 overall; rural 1,037 vs urban 985 5. Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (BBBP) — PIB, Ministry of Women and Child Development — scheme objectives and decade of implementation