Death of a Woman in Judicial Custody and Delayed Forensic Accountability

 

Death of a Woman in Judicial Custody and Delayed Forensic Accountability

An NHRC Case Analysis from Sahibganj, Jharkhand

(NHRC Diary No. 6590/IN/2022 | Case No. 669/34/17/2022-AD)

By Lenin Raghuvanshi

Human Rights Defender

Deaths in judicial custody represent one of the gravest human rights concerns, engaging the absolute responsibility of the State. The case of a 35-year-old woman who died while lodged in District Jail, Sahibganj (Jharkhand) exposes serious systemic delays in forensic investigation and highlights how procedural inertia can undermine custodial accountability.

This article analyses the case as documented and monitored by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) from April 2022 to August 2024.

Case Identification

• NHRC Diary No.: 6590/IN/2022

• NHRC Case/File No.: 669/34/17/2022-AD

• Incident Category: Death in Judicial Custody

• Victim: One Woman

• Age / Gender: 35 years / Female

• Native Place: Bhagalpur District, Bihar

• Place of Custody: District Jail (Mandal Kara), Sahibganj

• State: Jharkhand

• Date of Death: 24 April 2022

• Complainant: Dr. Lenin Raghuvanshi (Convener, PVCHR)

• Mode of Complaint: HRCNet / Online

• NHRC Registration Date: 28 April 2022

Background of the Case

The NHRC received a complaint alleging that:

• A 35-year-old woman, originally from Bhagalpur, Bihar,

• Died on 24.04.2022

• While she was in judicial custody at District Jail, Sahibganj, Jharkhand

The complainant sought NHRC intervention, citing the State’s non-derogable obligation to ensure the life, health, and dignity of persons in custody.

Under settled constitutional jurisprudence, any custodial death automatically triggers heightened scrutiny, and the burden lies on the State to explain the circumstances convincingly.

Post-Mortem and Forensic Developments

As per reports eventually submitted to the NHRC:

• Post-mortem was conducted on 24.04.2022 at:

  • Sadar Hospital, Sahibganj

• Viscera preserved and sent to:

  • Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Ranchi

• However:

  • Histopathology and final cause of death reports were delayed for nearly two years

Final Forensic Findings

• FSL Report: Dated 15.03.2023

• Final Cause of Death: Communicated on 15.02.2024

• Cause of death reported as:

  “Cardio-respiratory failure”

These reports were submitted to NHRC only in July 2024, after repeated directions and coercive steps.

NHRC’s Intervention: A Chronology of Escalation

Initial Action (2022)

• NHRC called for Action Taken Reports from:

  • District Collector, Sahibganj

  • Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj

  • Superintendent of Prisons, District Jail Sahibganj

• Jharkhand State Human Rights Commission was also informed

Repeated Non-Compliance (2022–2024)

Despite multiple reminders and Additional Information Calls:

• Essential forensic reports were not submitted

• The matter remained pending solely due to absence of histopathology and final cause of death

This prolonged delay itself became a rights concern.

Conditional Summons under Section 13, PHRA

Due to continued inaction, NHRC invoked its coercive powers:

• Conditional Summons issued twice:

  • 11 October 2023

  • 11 June 2024

• Summons were issued to:

  • District Collector, Sahibganj

  • Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj

  • Superintendent of Prisons, Mandal Kara Jail

The Commission explicitly noted:

“Despite giving ample opportunities, the matter is still pending for want of Histopathology examination of viscera report as well as final cause of death.”

Authorities were directed to appear personally before the Commission unless reports were submitted.

Submission of Reports and Transfer to Investigation Division

Following issuance of summons:

• FSL report and final cause of death were finally submitted in July 2024

• On 20 August 2024, NHRC directed:

  • The Registry to forward all reports and documents to the Investigation Division of the Commission

  • For examination and independent assessment

  • With directions to place findings before the Commission within six weeks

At this stage, the matter remains under NHRC’s investigative scrutiny.

Human Rights Analysis

1. Custodial Death and Absolute State Responsibility

A person in judicial custody is under complete control of the State. Any death in custody:

• Triggers strict liability

• Requires:

  • Prompt medical records

  • Transparent forensic examination

  • Independent investigation

Delays of nearly two years in determining cause of death are incompatible with custodial accountability.

2. Forensic Delay as a Rights Violation

The prolonged absence of histopathology and final cause of death reports:

• Undermines the right to:

  • Effective investigation

  • Truth and accountability

• Raises concern about:

  • Evidence integrity

  • Possibility of suppression or negligence

Timely forensic analysis is not a procedural formality, but a human rights obligation.

3. Necessity of Coercive Oversight

This case demonstrates why NHRC’s powers under Section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 are essential.

Without:

• Conditional summons

• Threat of personal appearance

The reports may never have been produced.

4. Beyond “Cardio-Respiratory Failure”

The phrase “cardio-respiratory failure” is a terminal physiological event, not an explanatory cause.

Human rights standards require examination of:

• Ante-mortem injuries

• Medical neglect

• Conditions of detention

• Possibility of custodial violence or neglect

This justifies NHRC’s decision to send the matter to its Investigation Division.

Why This Case Matters

This case underscores that:

• Custodial deaths are not merely medical events

• Delay itself can amount to denial of justice

• Institutional silence must not replace accountability

• Independent oversight is indispensable in jail-related deaths

The death of a woman in judicial custody at Sahibganj is not just a question of how she died, but why it took two years to find out.

NHRC’s persistence—through repeated reminders, conditional summons, and escalation to its Investigation Division—reflects the seriousness of custodial death cases. Yet, the ultimate test lies ahead: whether accountability follows forensic formalities.

Justice in custodial deaths must be swift, transparent, and fearless.

Anything less erodes the rule of law and the dignity of those behind bars.

Case Reference

NHRC Diary No. 6590/IN/2022

Case/File No. 669/34/17/2022-AD

Death of a Child in a School Hostel and the Limits of Institutional Accountability

Death of a Child in a School Hostel and the Limits of Institutional Accountability

An NHRC Case Analysis from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

(NHRC Diary No. 1526/IN/2023 | Case No. 3112/24/48/2023)

By Lenin Raghuvanshi

Human Rights Defender

The death of 13-year-old student Priya, a Class VIII student residing in a school hostel in Lucknow, raises grave concerns about child safety in educational institutions, custodial responsibility of schools, and the limits of accountability when investigations remain prolonged and inconclusive.

This article analyses the case as documented and monitored by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) from January 2023 to May 2024.

Case Identification

• NHRC Diary No.: 1526/IN/2023

• NHRC Case/File No.: 3112/24/48/2023

• Incident Category: Murder of Child

• Victim: Student Priya (Class VIII)

• Age / Gender: 13 years / Female

• Institution: SR College / SR Global School Hostel

• Incident Date: 25 December 2022

• Incident Place: S R College, Lucknow

• State: Uttar Pradesh

• Complainant: Lenin Raghuvanshi

• Mode of Complaint: HRCNet / Online

• NHRC Registration Date: 13 February 2023

Allegations and Background

According to the complaint placed before the NHRC:

• Priya, a minor child, was residing in the hostel of SR College / SR Global School

• She was brutally assaulted inside the hostel premises

• The assault resulted in her death

• The complainant alleged serious lapses by school authorities and police, including:

  • Failure to ensure safety of a minor under institutional care

  • Delay and lack of transparency in investigation

  • No immediate arrests, despite the gravity of the offence

The death occurred in a space where the child was under direct custodial control of the institution, invoking heightened standards of responsibility.

Criminal Case Status (as reported to NHRC)

As per reports submitted by the Lucknow Police and the Home Department:

• FIR No.: 16/2023

• Police Station: BKT Police Station, Lucknow

• Section Invoked:

  • Section 302 IPC – Murder

Investigation Details

• FIR registered against unknown persons

• Panchanama of the deceased conducted

• Statements of:

  • Teachers

  • Fellow students

  • Hostel watchmen

  • Doctors

• Call Detail Records (CDRs) of suspected persons (students of the same school) obtained

• Viscera preserved for FSL examination

• Scene of crime inspected

• Investigation transferred to CBCID, Uttar Pradesh

Despite these steps, no arrests were reported up to the time NHRC closed its proceedings.

NHRC’s Intervention and Monitoring

Initial Cognizance

• NHRC took cognizance on 26 January 2023

• Action Taken Report was called from:

  • Commissioner of Police, Lucknow

  • Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh

Subsequent Directions

• 25 July 2023: NHRC expressed concern over the seriousness of allegations and directed submission of a progress report

• Investigation was later transferred to CBCID, acknowledging the sensitive nature of the case

• Additional reports were sought in:

  • September 2023

  • March 2024

Closure of Proceedings

NHRC Order dated 31 May 2024

After considering the material on record, the Commission observed:

• FIR under Section 302 IPC had been registered

• Investigation was underway with CBCID

• Criminal law had been set in motion

The Commission concluded:

“Since criminal law has been set in motion and investigation has been transferred to CBCID, further intervention of the Commission is not required.”

Direction Issued

• The Director General, CBCID, Uttar Pradesh was directed to:

  • Continue investigation of FIR No. 16/2023

  • Act in accordance with the procedure established by law

The case was closed with direction to the authority.

Human Rights Analysis

1. Child’s Right to Life and Safety (Article 21)

A child living in a school hostel is under protective custody. Any harm occurring within such premises constitutes:

• A violation of the right to life and dignity

• A failure of institutional duty of care

The State bears responsibility not only through police action, but also through regulation and oversight of educational institutions.

2. Institutional Accountability Gap

While investigation was transferred to CBCID, NHRC records show:

• No identification of perpetrators at the time of closure

• No visible accountability of:

  • School management

  • Hostel authorities

  • Supervisory officials

Transfer of investigation, without timelines or outcomes, risks diffusing responsibility rather than fixing it.

3. Delay as a Rights Concern

The incident occurred in December 2022. By May 2024:

• Investigation remained inconclusive

• No arrests were disclosed

• The child’s family continued without closure

Delay in cases involving child death weakens evidence, accountability, and public confidence.

4. Limits of NHRC Jurisdiction

This case demonstrates a recurring institutional limitation:

• Once investigation is “in progress,”

• NHRC often defers further monitoring

This procedural closure may be legally justified, but it raises a critical question:

Who ensures urgency, transparency, and accountability in prolonged investigations involving child deaths?

Why This Case Matters

This case is significant because it highlights:

• Vulnerability of children in residential schools

• Gaps between investigation transfer and justice delivery

• Absence of parallel inquiry into institutional negligence

• The need for child-specific accountability frameworks

Conclusion

The death of student Priya is not merely a criminal case—it is a failure of institutional protection. While the NHRC ensured that criminal law was activated and investigation escalated to CBCID, justice remains incomplete without outcomes.

A hostel should be a place of safety.
For a child to die there, and for accountability to remain uncertain, is a matter of deep concern.

Justice for children cannot stop at “investigation is underway.”
It must end with truth, accountability, and reform.

Case Reference

NHRC Diary No. 1526/IN/2023
Case/File No. 3112/24/48/2023

 

A 7-Year-Old Found Naked and Unconscious in Jaunpur: NHRC Monitoring, Police Action, and Delayed Compensation

 

A 7-Year-Old Found Naked and Unconscious in Jaunpur: NHRC Monitoring, Police Action, and Delayed Compensation

(NHRC Diary No. 10249/IN/2024 | Case No. 17032/24/39/2024)

By Lenin Raghuvanshi

Human Rights Defender

The recovery of a 7-year-old minor girl in a naked and unconscious condition in Kerakat, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, in July 2024, represents one of the most disturbing forms of violence against children. While the criminal justice system did respond through arrest and prosecution, the delay in victim compensation and administrative follow-up exposes persistent structural failures in implementing child-protection laws.

This case, currently monitored by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), highlights both institutional response and institutional delay.

Case Identification

• NHRC Diary No.: 10249/IN/2024

• NHRC Case/File No.: 17032/24/39/2024

• Incident Category: Child Rape

• Victim: 7-year-old minor girl

• Incident Date: 01–03 July 2024

• Incident Place: Kerakat, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh

• Complainant: Lenin Raghuvanshi

• Mode of Complaint: HRCNet / Online

• Registration Date: 28 August 2024

Incident as Reported

According to media reports and NHRC records:

• The child went missing during a marriage ceremony

• She was later found naked and unconscious about 400 meters from her home

• Family members immediately dialed 112

• The child’s condition was critical; she was referred to Varanasi for better treatment

• The incident caused widespread panic and outrage in the locality

This incident clearly amounts to aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor, attracting the most stringent provisions of Indian law.

Criminal Case Status

As per the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur:

• FIR No.: 245/2024, PS Kerakat

• Sections Invoked:

  • Section 376AB IPC

  • Sections 5(m) / 6 POCSO Act

• Initially registered against unknown persons

• Four police teams were constituted for investigation

• Accused Raju was identified and arrested on 05 July 2024

• Chargesheet filed:

  • CS No. A-209/24 dated 24 August 2024

• The matter is now sub judice

From a criminal law perspective, police investigation and prosecution progressed promptly.

NHRC’s Role and Intervention

NHRC Cognizance

The NHRC took cognizance of the case based on:

• Media reporting

• Complaint highlighting police inaction and victim vulnerability

• Request for compensation and protection

Key NHRC Directions

Between September 2024 and February 2025, NHRC issued multiple directions to:

• Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur

• District Magistrate, Jaunpur

• Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh

• Director General of Police, UP

Compensation Delay: A Serious Rights Violation

Legal Entitlement

Under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmibai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Rules, 2015:

• First installment: Within 15 days of FIR

• Second installment: Within 30 days of chargesheet

• Applicable specifically under Section 6 POCSO

Reality on Ground

• Proposal for compensation was uploaded on the portal

• No payment made even after two months

• NHRC noted lack of clarity on:

  • Medical officer’s report upload

  • Administrative follow-up by District Magistrate

NHRC Observation (21 February 2025)

“Payment of compensation was supposed to be made within the prescribed timeline. There is no development thereafter.”

NHRC directed the District Magistrate, Jaunpur to expedite payment and submit compliance within six weeks.

Human Rights Analysis

1. Violation of Article 21

The incident represents a grave violation of the child’s:

• Right to life

• Right to dignity

• Right to bodily integrity

• Right to protection from sexual violence

2. Child Protection Failure

The occurrence during a social function exposes:

• Lack of child safety mechanisms

• Absence of preventive vigilance

• Community-level protection gaps

3. Compensation Delay = Secondary Victimization

Failure to release timely compensation:

• Violates statutory rules

• Aggravates trauma

• Undermines survivor-centric justice

4. Accountability Gap

While police action was relatively swift, administrative inertia by district authorities diluted the relief mechanism meant for child survivors.

Why This Case Matters

This case shows that:

• Justice is not complete with arrest alone

• Victim compensation is a legal right, not charity

• Administrative delay can undo the purpose of progressive laws like POCSO

• NHRC monitoring remains crucial to push state accountability

Conclusion

A child found naked and unconscious is not merely a crime statistic—it is a failure of society, state vigilance, and administrative responsibility. While the criminal law has moved forward, justice remains incomplete until compensation reaches the survivor without delay.

Child survivors cannot wait for bureaucratic timelines.

Justice delayed in relief is justice denied in reality.

Case Reference:

NHRC Diary No. 10249/IN/2024

Case/File No. 17032/24/39/2024

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.

Death of a Young Labourer at Sai Stone Crusher and Administrative Silence on Labour Law Violations

 

Death of a Young Labourer at Sai Stone Crusher and Administrative Silence on Labour Law Violations

NHRC Case Analysis

(Diary No. 1938/IN/2024 | Case No. 59/35/7/2024)

By Lenin Raghuvanshi

(Human Rights Defender)

The death of a worker during the course of employment is not an “accident” when it occurs in hazardous conditions without safety measures. The case of Aadarsh, a young college student who died after being buried under sand at Sai Stone Crusher in the Swar area of Kashipur, exposes not only employer negligence but also systemic failure of labour law enforcement authorities.

This blog analyses the case as monitored by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), highlighting how compensation was paid through a private compromise, while serious labour law violations and official negligence remain unaddressed.

Case Identification

• NHRC Diary No.: 1938/IN/2024

• NHRC Case/File No.: 59/35/7/2024

• Victim: Aadarsh (Male)

• Incident Date: January 2024

• Incident Place: Sai Stone Crusher, Swar area, Kashipur

• Victim’s Background: College student working as a labourer to support his impoverished family

• Incident Category: Death during hazardous employment

• Complainant: Lenin Raghuvanshi

• Mode of Complaint: HRCNet (Online)

• Registration Date: 07 February 2024

Incident as Reported

According to the complaint and subsequent official reports:

• The victim died after being buried under sand at a stone crusher

• He was working in hazardous conditions without any safety equipment

• Police allegedly misbehaved with the victim’s family at the incident site

• It was alleged that multiple workers had lost their lives over the years at the same establishment

The victim’s death was medically confirmed as:

“Due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.”

Findings from Police and Spot Inspection

Reports submitted by the DGP, Uttar Pradesh and SP, Rampur revealed critical facts:

• Workers were not provided any safety equipment

• The stone crusher owner failed to produce mandatory registers, including:

  • Wage details

  • Attendance

  • Number of workers

  • Salary records

• These findings clearly established ongoing violations of labour laws

Despite this, police concluded an enquiry under Section 174 CrPC stating that no offence was made out, while simultaneously acknowledging labour law violations.

Compensation Through “Compromise”

A report dated 10 May 2024 stated that:

• A compromise was reached between the stone crusher owner and the victim’s family

• ₹11,00,000 was paid to the Next of Kin (NoK)

• Proof of payment was submitted to NHRC

While compensation is important, the NHRC noted that payment of money does not absolve responsibility for statutory violations.

Failure of the Labour Department

Repeated Non-Response

Despite multiple directions from the NHRC:

• The Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, repeatedly failed to submit action-taken reports

• The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Rampur, did not respond to:

  • Police communications dated 26.06.2024 and 31.07.2024

  • NHRC directions dated 10.04.2024 and 31.05.2024

Silence on Labour Law Violations

Even when the Labour Commissioner finally submitted a report (15.10.2024), it:

• Merely repeated that compensation had been paid

• Was completely silent on violations of labour laws, despite:

  • Absence of safety equipment

  • Non-maintenance of statutory registers

  • Death during employment

NHRC’s Strong Observations

The Commission categorically observed that:

• Enforcement of labour laws is the primary responsibility of the Labour Department

• Silence and inaction by labour officials amounted to negligence

• Failure to inspect and act against the stone crusher establishment could invite future mishaps

• The approach of the Labour Department reflected institutional apathy

---

Conditional Summon and Escalation

Due to continued non-compliance:

• NHRC issued a Conditional Summon under Section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to the Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh (11.09.2024)

• The Commission warned that failure to respond could lead to coercive action

• Even thereafter, no substantive action on labour law enforcement was reported

Direction to the Chief Secretary

Recognizing persistent defiance:

• NHRC directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to submit an Action Taken Report regarding labour law violations

• The Commission explicitly stated that:

  Failure would be presumed as “nothing to urge” and may invite show-cause notice under Section 18 of PHRA

As of the latest proceedings (January 2025), requisite reports were still not submitted, leading to a final reminder.

Human Rights Analysis

Article 21 – Right to Life and Dignity

A worker’s right to life includes:

• Safe working conditions

• Protection from hazardous employment

• Effective enforcement of labour laws

Death due to unsafe conditions is a direct violation of Article 21.

Compensation Is Not Accountability

While ₹11 lakh compensation was paid:

• No prosecution under labour laws is evident

• No inspection-based enforcement action is recorded

• No accountability of labour officials has been fixed

This reflects normalisation of “pay and forget” culture.

State Complicity Through Inaction

When authorities:

• Ignore statutory violations

• Fail to inspect hazardous workplaces

• Remain silent despite repeated NHRC directions

The State becomes complicit in structural violence against workers.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates that:

• A young worker died in clearly unsafe conditions

• Employer violations were officially documented

• Labour authorities failed in their statutory duty

• NHRC had to repeatedly escalate the matter to the Chief Secretary

Yet, labour law enforcement remains absent.

Final Reflection

Compensation may soothe grief, but silence of enforcement invites the next death.

If labour laws are not enforced after a fatality, they exist only on paper.

The dignity of labour cannot depend on compromise—it demands accountability.

Death of a Newborn in Badaun Due to Medical Negligence and Bribery: An NHRC Case Analysis

Death of a Newborn in Badaun Due to Medical Negligence and Bribery: An NHRC Case Analysis

(Diary No. 1930/IN/2024 | Case No. 2137/24/7/2024)

By Lenin Raghuvanshi

(Human Rights Defender)

The death of a newborn child due to lack of timely medical care is not merely a medical failure—it is a grave violation of the right to life and dignity. A case from Badaun district, Uttar Pradesh, involving the death of an underweight newborn allegedly due to denial of an incubator and demand for bribe in a government hospital, exposes systemic neglect, corruption, and administrative apathy in public healthcare.

This blog analyses the case as examined by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and highlights serious accountability gaps despite clear findings and directions.

Case Identification

• NHRC Diary No.: 1930/IN/2024

• NHRC Case/File No.: 2137/24/7/2024

• Victim: Newborn male child

• Incident Date: 17 January 2024

• Incident Place: Badaun district, Uttar Pradesh

• Incident Category: Lack of Proper Medical Facilities in the State

• Complainant: Lenin Raghuvanshi

• Mode of Complaint: HRCNet (Online)

• Registration Date: 13 February 2024

---

Incident as Reported in Media

The complaint was based on a news report published in Amar Ujala, which revealed that:

• A newborn underweight baby was admitted to a government hospital in Badaun

• The baby was not provided an incubator in the SNCU (Special Newborn Care Unit) for about 12 hours

• The family was allegedly asked to pay a bribe of ₹5,000 before the baby was admitted to the SNCU

• Due to delay and negligence by hospital staff, the newborn died

The report raised alarming questions about:

• Emergency neonatal care

• Corruption in public hospitals

• Violation of established medical protocols

NHRC’s Intervention

Taking cognizance of the complaint, the NHRC examined the matter in light of:

• Referral Guidelines for Health Facilities in Uttar Pradesh

• Technical Specifications of Medical Devices for SNCU (2015) issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India

• UNICEF Toolkit for Setting up SNCUs

The Commission found the allegations serious enough to warrant strict action.

Show Cause Notice and Findings

On 02 July 2024, the NHRC issued a Show Cause Notice to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, seeking an explanation for the lapse.

Despite the gravity of the matter:

• No response was received from the Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare, even after more than four months

• The Commission observed that the department appeared to have nothing to urge in its defence

NHRC’s Direction on Compensation

Vide proceedings dated 20 November 2024, the NHRC:

• Confirmed the Show Cause Notice

• Held the Government of Uttar Pradesh accountable

• Directed the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, to:

  • Release compensation of ₹2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the Next of Kin (NoK) of the deceased newborn

  • Submit a compliance report with proof of payment within six weeks

This order acknowledged that the death occurred due to delay and negligence in providing essential neonatal care.

Continued Non-Compliance by the State

Despite clear directions:

• No compliance report or proof of payment was submitted to the NHRC

• On 12 June 2025, the Commission issued a final reminder to:

  • The Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh

  • The Principal Secretary, Medical Health & Family Welfare

The Commission directed that compliance be submitted within four weeks, positively.

This prolonged non-compliance reflects administrative indifference even after confirmation of human rights violation.

---

Human Rights Analysis

Violation of Article 21

The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes:

• Right to timely medical treatment

• Right to dignified healthcare

• Right of newborns to special protection

Denial of an incubator for 12 critical hours constitutes a direct violation of this right.

Corruption as a Human Rights Violation

Demanding a bribe for life-saving treatment:

• Criminalizes poverty

• Discriminates against the most vulnerable

• Converts public healthcare into a privilege rather than a right

Failure of State Accountability

The refusal or failure to respond to NHRC notices and directions:

• Undermines constitutional institutions

• Signals impunity in public health governance

• Denies closure and justice to grieving families

Conclusion

This case demonstrates that:

• Medical negligence can be fatal, especially for newborns

• Corruption in healthcare is not an isolated aberration but a structural problem

• Even after NHRC findings, justice can be stalled by executive inaction

Compensation cannot bring back a life—but non-payment of even ordered compensation deepens injustice.

Final Reflection

A newborn’s life should never depend on a bribe.

Silence and delay by the state after such a death is itself a form of violence.

This case is a reminder that human rights begin at birth, and the right to health is meaningless unless backed by accountability, transparency, and compassion.