Selling a Child to Pay Hospital Bills: Exploitation, Poverty, and Closure of an NHRC Case

 

Selling a Child to Pay Hospital Bills: Exploitation, Poverty, and Closure of an NHRC Case

NHRC Case Analysis

(Diary No. 15470/IN/2024 | Case No. 24228/24/45/2024)

By Dr. Lenin Raghuvanshi

(Human Rights Defender)

Extreme poverty often pushes families into decisions that no parent should ever be forced to make. A deeply disturbing case from Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, where parents sold their two-and-a-half-year-old child to secure the hospital discharge of their newborn baby, exposes the lethal intersection of poverty, illegal healthcare practices, debt traps, and weak social protection systems.

This blog analyses how the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) dealt with this case and why, despite serious human rights concerns, the matter was ultimately closed.

Case Identification

• NHRC Diary No.: 15470/IN/2024

• NHRC Case/File No.: 24228/24/45/2024

• Victims: Newborn baby and minor child of Lakshmina and Haresh

• Incident Date: 17 September 2024

• Incident Place: Kushinagar district, Uttar Pradesh

• Incident Category: Exploitation of Children

• Complainant: Dr. Lenin Raghuvanshi

• Mode of Complaint: HRCNet (Online)

• Registration Date: 12 December 2024

Facts of the Case as Placed Before NHRC

The complaint filed on 20 September 2024 alleged that:

• A couple in Kushinagar, trapped in a severe debt cycle, were unable to pay the hospital discharge fee for their newborn

• In desperation, they sold their two-and-a-half-year-old son for ₹20,000

• During police questioning, the father was allegedly extorted ₹5,000 by police personnel

• The hospital involved was operating illegally without a valid licence

• The family lacked basic welfare support, including ration cards and health cards

• Microfinance debt and absence of state support played a critical role in the crisis

The complaint sought:

• Investigation into police misconduct

• Accountability of illegal medical establishments

• Scrutiny of microfinance practices

• Immediate rehabilitation and welfare support for the family

NHRC’s Initial Intervention

Taking cognizance on 18 December 2024, the NHRC directed:

• The District Magistrate, Kushinagar

• The Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar

to submit Action Taken Reports in the matter.

This reflected recognition that the incident involved:

• Child exploitation

• Failure of healthcare regulation

• Possible police misconduct

• Breakdown of social security mechanisms

Police Action and Criminal Proceedings

As per the report of the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar dated 27 January 2025:

FIR for Sale of the Child

• FIR No.: 87/2024 (PS Barva Patti)

• Chargesheet No.: 90/2024 dated 26.10.2024

• Sections Invoked:

  • Sections 143, 127(2), 318(4), 61(2) BNS

  • Sections 80/87 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

• Accused: Tara Kushwaha, Suganti Devi, Amavash Yadav, Bhola Yadav, Kalavati Devi

FIR Against Illegal Clinic

• FIR No.: 88/2024

• Chargesheet No.: 86/2024 dated 17.10.2024

• Sections Invoked:

  • Section 318(4) BNS

  • Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act

• The illegal clinic was sealed

These actions confirmed that the core criminal acts were formally prosecuted.

Closure of the NHRC Case

After perusing the police report, the NHRC observed that:

• The matter is sub judice, with chargesheets already filed

• Under Sub-Rule (xi) of Regulation 9 of the NHRC Regulations, 1994,
  the Commission cannot continue proceedings when the matter is pending trial

Accordingly, on 07 April 2025, the NHRC closed the case with the remark:

“Concluded and No Further Action Required.”

Human Rights Analysis

1. Criminal Action vs. Structural Accountability

While criminal cases were registered:

• Root causes—poverty, debt, lack of welfare access—remain unaddressed

• NHRC closure means no monitoring of rehabilitation or state support

Justice in court does not automatically ensure restoration of dignity and security.

2. Poverty as a Driver of Child Exploitation

This case illustrates that:

• Child trafficking can be poverty-induced, not always organised crime

• Selling a child became a survival strategy, not criminal intent by parents

• Absence of universal healthcare and social security directly contributed to exploitation

3. Illegal Healthcare and State Failure

The role of:

• An unlicensed clinic

• Absence of emergency neonatal care

• Failure to regulate private medical establishments

raises questions of state accountability beyond criminal prosecution.

4. Police Misconduct Allegation Left Unexamined

The allegation of extortion by police was not independently examined by NHRC after case closure, leaving:

• Accountability gaps

• Risk of impunity for coercive practices against impoverished families

Article 21 and Children’s Rights

The right to life under Article 21 includes:

• Right to healthcare

• Right to protection from exploitation

• Right to social security

For children, this is reinforced by:

• Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

• India’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

When families must sell children to access healthcare, the violation is systemic, not individual.

Conclusion

This case shows that:

• Criminal law responded to the incident

• NHRC followed its regulatory limits

• But structural injustice remains unresolved

Closure of a case does not mean closure of responsibility.

Final Reflection

No parent should have to choose between a newborn’s life and another child’s freedom.

If poverty, debt, and lack of healthcare continue to push families into such choices, child exploitation will persist—even without traffickers.

Human rights protection must go beyond prosecution; it must prevent desperation itself.