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.

 

Alleged Gang Rape in Badaun and the Closure of an NHRC Case: A Critical Analysis

Alleged Gang Rape in Badaun and the Closure of an NHRC Case: A Critical Analysis

By Lenin Raghuvanshi

(Human Rights Defender)

Cases of sexual violence, particularly gang rape allegations involving local power holders, test the credibility of law enforcement and human rights institutions. One such case emerged from Ughaiti Police Station, Badaun district, Uttar Pradesh, in September 2023, raising troubling questions about access to justice, investigative processes, and the vulnerability of survivors.

This blog examines the case Diary No. 14971/IN/2023 | Case No. 23761/24/7/2023-WC, as registered and processed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and offers an analysis of how the matter unfolded and was ultimately closed.

Background of the Allegation

According to the complaint submitted on 12 September 2023, an online news report alleged that on 07 September 2023, a 34-year-old woman from a village under Ughaiti Police Station, Badaun, was gang-raped by four persons, including the son of a village Pradhan.

As per the complaint:

• The woman was going to take medicine with her brother-in-law

• Both were allegedly taken hostage at gunpoint

• They were taken to a secluded place where the offence was allegedly committed

• When the victim’s husband reached the spot, he reportedly found his wife in a delirious condition

• The accused were allegedly present at the police station when the husband approached it

• It was alleged that the police did not take action, allegedly to protect the accused

The complainant sought the intervention of the NHRC, citing failure of local police to act.

NHRC’s Initial Response

The NHRC took prompt cognizance of the complaint on 13 September 2023 and referred the matter to its Investigation Division. The Commission directed that facts be collected telephonically from concerned authorities and the matter be placed before it within a week.

This step acknowledged the seriousness of the allegation, particularly given:

• The nature of the offence (gang rape)

• Alleged involvement of influential persons

• Alleged police inaction

Police Version and Contradictory Statements

During NHRC’s inquiry:

• The SHO, PS Ughaiti, denied the allegation

• Police stated the issue was a civil dispute over land and tractor passage

• It was claimed that both parties had earlier submitted complaints on 01 September 2023

• Police reported that the dispute was later amicably settled on 10 September 2023

• The brother-in-law, who was allegedly present during the incident, stated that no such incident occurred

Based on these statements, the police narrative directly contradicted the media report and the original complaint.

Action Taken Report and Closure of the Case

On 27 September 2023, the NHRC forwarded the matter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Badaun, seeking an Action Taken Report (ATR) and also directed that police communications be shared with the victim’s husband for comments.

In response:

• The Additional Superintendent of Police, Badaun, submitted an ATR dated 12 October 2023

• The ATR stated that the complainant admitted to filing the complaint due to a civil dispute, allegedly on the instigation of others

• It was further stated that the complainant did not want further action

After considering these submissions, the NHRC concluded on 28 November 2023 that:

• The complainant had admitted the dispute was civil in nature

• He no longer wished to pursue the matter

• No further action was required

• The case was formally closed

Human Rights Analysis: Key Concerns

While the case is officially concluded, several structural and human rights concerns merit reflection:

1. Reliance on Police Version in Sexual Violence Allegations

In cases where police inaction or bias is alleged, reliance on the same police machinery for fact verification raises questions of institutional conflict of interest.

2. Withdrawal or Denial by Families

In many sexual violence cases, especially in rural settings:

• Survivors and families face social pressure

• Threats, stigma, and power asymmetry can influence statements

• “Settlements” may not always reflect free and informed consent

3. Absence of Medical and Forensic Examination

The records do not reflect:

• Independent medical examination

• Forensic evidence collection

• Judicial oversight at the initial stage

This weakens the ability to arrive at an objective truth.

4. Chilling Effect on Reporting

When cases involving influential accused are closed without transparent, independent investigation, it risks:

• Discouraging survivors from reporting

• Reinforcing fear and silence

• Undermining trust in justice institutions

Conclusion

The NHRC acted within its procedural framework and relied on the material placed before it. However, this case illustrates the limitations of complaint-based redress mechanisms in environments marked by local power dominance, social pressure, and police control of narratives.

Closure of a case does not necessarily mean closure of truth.

For survivors of sexual violence, justice requires:

• Independence

• Sensitivity

• Protection from coercion

• Institutional courage to question dominant narratives

Final Reflection

Human rights work is not only about outcomes recorded in files, but about continuously questioning whether systems truly serve the most vulnerable.

Every closed case should still invite learning—so that future survivors are not silenced before justice even begins.

Case No.- 23761/24/7/2023-WC

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

(LAW DIVISION)

* * *

MANAV ADHIKAR BHAWAN, BLOCK-C,

G.P.O. COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI- 110023

Fax No.: 011-24651332    Website: www.nhrc.nic.in

---

Date : 13/09/2023

To,

DG(I), NHRC National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi DELHI DELHI Email- dg-nhrc@nic.in

Subject: Sent to DG(I), NHRC -23761/24/7/2023-WC.

Sir/Madam,

The complaint/intimation dated 12/09/2023, was placed before the Commission on 13/09/2023. Upon perusing the same, the Commission directed as follows:

The complainant, while referring an online newspaper, has alleged that on 07.09.2023, the victim woman was gang-raped by the four accused persons, including Pradhan’s Son in a village under Ughaiti Police Station of district Baduan. As per the complaint, she was going to take medicine with her brother-in-law, they were taken in hostage on gun point and were taken in a secluded place where the offence was committed. When the victim's husband reached the spot after getting information about this incident, he found his wife/victim in a delirious state and the brother lying there. He went to the police station, but the accused was already present at the police station. In order to favoring the accused, the police did not take action. The complainant has sought intervention of the Commission.  Let the complaint be referred to the Investigation Division of the Commission to have the facts in the matter collected over telephone from the concerned authorities, and put up by 18.09.2023.

2.      Accordingly, I am forwarding herewith a copy of the complaint/intimation as an attachment for taking appropriate action in the matter as per the directions of the Commission. It is requested that an Action Taken Report be sent to the Commission within 0 weeks from the date of receipt of this letter.

Your’s faithfully Sd/- K.K. Shrivastava DEPUTY REGISTRAR (LAW) M-5 Section Ph. No. 011-24663291

CC to

Complainant Details Case No. 23761/24/7/2023-WC LENIN RAGHUVANSHI SA4/2A DAULATPUR VARANASI VARANASI , UTTAR PRADESH 221002 Email- pvchr.adv@gmail.com , Mob No- 9935599331

 

Custodial Death in Agra: NHRC Seeks Reports from Police and District Administration in Kedar Singh Case

 

Custodial Death in Agra: NHRC Seeks Reports from Police and District Administration in Kedar Singh Case
By Dr. Lenin Raghuvanshi
(Human Rights Defender)

Custodial deaths remain one of the gravest human rights violations in India. Despite constitutional guarantees and Supreme Court guidelines, allegations of torture and deaths in police custody continue to surface. One such case is the custodial death of Kedar Singh, a 55-year-old man from Agra, Uttar Pradesh.

Case Details (NHRC)

• Diary No.: 2603/IN/2025

• Case/File No.: 2095/24/1/2025-PCD

• Victim: Kedar Singh (55 years)

• Incident Category: Custodial Death (Police)

• Incident Date: 07 February 2025

• Place: Police Chauki Kabis, District Agra, Uttar Pradesh

• Complainant: Dr. Lenin Raghuvanshi

The complaint was submitted through HRCNet and registered by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

Allegations in the Complaint

The complaint alleges that third-degree torture was inflicted upon Kedar Singh by police officials of Kabis Police Chauki, Agra, while he was in custody on 07 February 2025.

As per the complaint and the media report cited therein:

• A cloth was forcibly stuffed into the victim’s mouth to suppress his screams

• The victim allegedly succumbed due to custodial torture

• The incident was reported in print media on the same date

These allegations raise serious concerns regarding custodial violence, abuse of authority, and violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

NHRC Takes Cognizance

The NHRC took cognizance of the matter and, vide proceedings dated 21 March 2025, directed the District Magistrate, Agra and the Commissioner of Police, Agra to submit detailed reports covering all aspects of the custodial death.

The Commission specifically called for:

1. A detailed report covering time, place, and reasons for arrest/detention

2. Copy of the complaint registered against the deceased

3. Arrest memo and inspection memo

4. Information on whether family/relatives were informed of arrest

5. Seizure memo and recovery memo

6. Medical Legal Certificate (MLC)

7. Copies of all relevant GD entries

8. Inquest report

9. Post-mortem report (typed, with injury details)

10. Video recording of post-mortem examination

11. Site plan of the place of occurrence

12. Chemical and histopathological examination of viscera (if applicable)

13. Final cause of death based on FSL report

14. Magisterial enquiry report under Section 176(1-A) CrPC

Non-Compliance and NHRC Reminder

Despite these clear directions, no reports were received by the NHRC within the stipulated time.

Consequently, the Commission issued an Additional Information Called for (AIC) order dated 30 July 2025, directing:

• The Commissioner of Police, Agra

• The District Magistrate, Agra

to submit the complete reports within two weeks, with a final reminder deadline of 23 August 2025.

This continued non-submission of reports reflects serious administrative apathy in a matter involving death in police custody.

Why This Case Is Important

Custodial deaths strike at the heart of:

• The rule of law

• Police accountability

• India’s obligations under international human rights standards

The Supreme Court of India and the NHRC have repeatedly emphasized that custodial violence is impermissible and that every custodial death must be subjected to independent, transparent, and time-bound investigation.

Failure to submit mandatory reports not only delays justice but also deepens mistrust in law-enforcement institutions.

Call for Accountability

I urge:

• The Agra Police Commissionerate and District Administration to immediately comply with NHRC directions

• A fair, impartial, and independent investigation into the death of Kedar Singh

• Accountability of officials responsible for custodial torture, if established

• Compensation and relief to the family of the deceased as per law

Custody does not extinguish fundamental rights. No person should lose their life at the hands of the state.

Conclusion

The NHRC’s continued monitoring of this case is crucial. However, justice will only be meaningful when:

• Truth is established

• Responsibility is fixed

• Structural safeguards are strengthened to prevent future custodial deaths

Every custodial death is a reminder that human dignity must remain inviolable—especially when the state exercises its power.

Two Labourers Died While Fixing Jal Jeevan Mission Tank Leak: NHRC Seeks Action from Uttar Pradesh Labour Department

 

Two Labourers Died While Fixing Jal Jeevan Mission Tank Leak: NHRC Seeks Action from Uttar Pradesh Labour Department

By Lenin Raghuvanshi

(Human Rights Defender)

Deaths of workers during government-funded infrastructure projects expose deep failures in safety, accountability, and enforcement of labour laws. One such tragic incident occurred in Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh, where two labourers lost their lives while repairing a water tank under the Jal Jeevan Mission.

Incident Reported in Media

On 18 May 2025, the Hindi daily Dainik Jagran reported a tragic accident under the headline:

“लीकेज ठीक करते समय दो की मौत”

(Two died while fixing leakage)

According to the report:

• The incident occurred during repair work of a water tank constructed under the Jal Jeevan Mission

• A lifter machine sank into a swampy area, overturned, and struck a wall

• Two labourers, Suresh Patel and Banwari Patel, who were sitting on the trolley, fell down and died

• After the incident, no officials or employees of the executing company (L&T) reached the site

The report raises serious concerns regarding workplace safety, supervision, and post-incident accountability.

Complaint Submitted to NHRC

In light of the incident, I submitted a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on 19 May 2025, seeking:

• A fair and independent investigation into the deaths

• Accountability of contractors and authorities responsible for safety lapses

• Compensation and relief for the families of the deceased workers

The matter was registered by NHRC as:

• Case No.: 11474/24/20/2025

• Category: Deaths/Injury in Unorganized Sector

• Victims: Suresh Patel and Banwari Patel

• Place of Incident: Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh

NHRC Directs Labour Commissioner to Act

After examining the complaint, the NHRC, through its Action Taken Report (ATR) order dated 13 August 2025, observed:

Two labourers died when a lifter machine overturned and hit a wall while fixing leakage under the Jal Jeevan Mission. The incident occurred due to the machine sinking into a swampy area, and no officials visited the site afterward. The complaint seeks a fair investigation and compensation for the victims' families.

The Commission directed the Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, to:

• Examine the complaint

• Take appropriate action as per law

• Submit an Action Taken Report within four weeks

This direction confirms that the Commission found the matter serious enough to require intervention by the state labour authorities.

Why This Case Matters

This incident highlights critical systemic issues:

• Unsafe working conditions in government-funded projects

• Neglect of labour safety norms in the unorganized sector

• Lack of immediate response by executing agencies

• Vulnerability of poor workers whose deaths often go unaccounted

Deaths at worksites are not “accidents” when safety protocols are ignored. They are violations of the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Call for Accountability

I urge:

• The Labour Department, Uttar Pradesh, to conduct a transparent and time-bound inquiry

• Fix responsibility on contractors and officials for negligence

• Ensure adequate compensation and rehabilitation for the families

• Enforce labour safety laws strictly in Jal Jeevan Mission and similar projects

Development cannot be built on the lives of unprotected workers.

Conclusion

The NHRC’s intervention is a crucial step, but justice will only be complete when:

• Accountability is fixed

• Families receive compensation and dignity

• Preventive mechanisms are strengthened to ensure such tragedies do not recur

Every worker’s life matters.

From: <nhrc.india@nic.in>
Date: Wed, Aug 13, 2025, 21:02
Subject: Action Taken Report Called for(ATR) -11474/24/20/2025
To: <lcup@uplabourdeptt.com>, <labourcom@nic.in>, <pvchr.adv@gmail.com>

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

MANAV ADHIKAR BHAWAN BLOCK-C, GPO COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI- 110023

Fax No.: 011-24651332    Website: www.nhrc.nic.in

(Law Division)

Case No.- 11474/24/20/2025

---

Date : 13/08/2025

To,

THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH Email- lcup@uplabourdeptt.com,labourcom@nic.in

Sub : Complaint/ Intimation from

LENIN RAGHUVANSHI SA 4/2 A DAULATPUR, VARANASI VARANASI , UTTAR PRADESH 221002 Email- pvchr.adv@gmail.com , Mob No- 9935599331

Subject: Action Taken Report Called for(ATR) -11474/24/20/2025.

Sir/ Madam,

The complaint/ intimation dated 19/05/2025, was placed before the Commission on 13/08/2025. Upon perusing the same, the Commission directed as follows:

Two laborers, Suresh Patel and Banwari Patel, died when a lifter machine overturned and hit a wall while fixing leakage under the Jal Jeevan Mission. The incident occurred due to the machine sinking into a swampy area, and no L&T officials visited the site afterward. The complaint seeks a fair investigation and compensation for the victims' families. Let a copy of complaint be transmitted to the Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh calling for an Action Taken Report within four weeks. Put up after four weeks.

2.      Accordingly, I am forwarding herewith a copy of the complaint/ intimation as an attachment for taking appropriate action in the matter as per the directions of the Commission. It is requested that an Action Taken Report be sent to the Commission within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this letter.

3.     Any communication by public authorities in this matter may please be sent to the Commission through the HRCNet Portal (https://hrcnet.nic.in) by using id and password already provided to the public authorities (click Authority Login). Any Audio/ Video CDs/ pen drives etc. may be sent through Speed Post/ per bearer. The reports/ responses sent through email may not be entertained.

Your’s faithfully Sd/- Indrajeet Kumar DEPUTY REGISTRAR (LAW) M-2 Section Ph. No. 011-24663276

CC to

Complainant Details Case No. 11474/24/20/2025 LENIN RAGHUVANSHI SA 4/2 A DAULATPUR, VARANASI VARANASI , UTTAR PRADESH 221002 Email- pvchr.adv@gmail.com , Mob No- 9935599331 Indrajeet Kumar DEPUTY REGISTRAR (LAW) M-2 Section Ph. No. 011-24663276