Denial of the Right to Health in Orissa:

Where are NHRIs?

Global Human Rights Communications

In association with
The Resist Initiative International
Peoples Rural Education Movement
International Centre for Health Rights
India Friends Association
Research Team
Dr. Subash Mohaptra
Advocate Kanak Shaw
Mr. Sudhanshu Sekhar Mohanty
Ms. Kamayani Srivastava
Mr. Mrutyunjay Pradhan

Published by:
Global Human Rights Communications
Kalamati-Dibyasinghpur Chhak
Raigurupur, Puri, Orissa-752019, India
Email: ghrcommunications@gmail.com

© Global Human Rights Communications.

Year: 2010

Global Human Rights Communications

In association with
The Resist Initiative International
Peoples Rural Education Movement
International Centre for Health Rights
India Friends Association
Contents
Ι. Executive Summary 04

ΙΙ. Right to Health and Role of NHRIs 05

ΙΙΙ. Orissa case 09

IV. Response from NHRIs 18

V. Findings 21

VI. Abbreviation 23
I. Executive Summary
The report of an extensive public health inquiry conducted, & petitions made to
National Human Rights Institutions, both National Human Rights Commission and Orissa
Human Rights Commission by Global Human Rights Communications, bear witness to
gross violation of right to health of the common people, indigenous communities,
women and children in particular, in the State of Orissa. Despite the continual
infringements & regular petition towards such violations, the response has been
dismal, much to the chagrin of the masses. One aspect of this chain of unfortunate
events is the lack of accountability of public health authorities in the State of Orissa
causing increase in the death toll. The populace of the Orissa is excluded from any
statutory recognition of right to health.

Global Human Rights Communications (GHRC), by engaging itself into monitoring of

the issues and advocating at NHRIs, tries to facilitate the remedy and justice. In the
matter of appalling breach of right to health of the people of State of Orissa, GHRC
sought initiative to prevent death and provide relief to victims & compensation to
deceased’s family members. But unfortunately, the NHRIs, both National Human Rights
Commission and Orissa Human Rights Commission terribly failed to prevent such
deaths. They blatantly violate the laws and procedures, the very basis of which they
themselves are constituted. The arbitrary decision, delay, denial of natural justice and
dead silence response to the petitions are common practice at National Human Rights
Commission, which is headed by a former Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan.
Orissa Human Rights Commissions is not concerned with the petitions in the interest of
justice and human rights at all; petitions made always go without an
acknowledgement.

To Global Human Rights Communications’ knowledge, NHRC has just issued notices in
two cases to the concerned authorities, including the Chief Secretary and Health
Secretary, of the Government of Orissa. Additionally, NHRC transferred the cases to
OHRC, which is not to be disturbed from its “deep sleep”, under section 13 (6) of the
Human Rights Protection act -1993 which states, “Where the Commission considers it
necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, transfer any complaint filed or
pending before it to the State Commission of the State from which the complaint
arises, for disposal in accordance with the provisions of this Act”.

Global Human Rights Communications claims that NHRIs, both NHRC and OHRC must
intervene immediately and act expeditiously in the interest of the justice and human
rights, not to shield the perpetrators of human rights’ violators, i.e., the health
authorities of Orissa. They ought to function in compliance with the Human Rights
Protection Act and the Paris Principles. They must form investigation and for the
prevention of more deaths of the indigenous communities by ensuring the right to
health of the victims, who struggle for their lives in the remote areas of Orissa.

Besides, for the impartiality of the investigation, it is necessary for NHRC to collect
the information, not only from the relevant government authority but also from the
victim’s family and others. So far NHRC did not intervene & collect any evidence and
opinion for the purpose of addressing the breach of right to health, of people of
Orissa. The NHRC’s duty is not to request a report from the administration but to
investigate the parties in the administration against whom the complaints are made.
Its primary role is to collect facts from various parties and make an unbiased
conclusion. Unfortunately, so far NHRC did not make any objective investigation to
discover the facts. In addition, there is a big time gap between the complaints and the
investigation. It has miserably failed to execute its role & responsibility.

Global Human Rights Communications found 179 persons deceased due to denial of
right to health and extreme poverty.

II. Right to Health and Role of NHRIs

I.a Right to Health

A close review of the international instruments and interpretive documents brings into
light that the right to health, as enshrined in international law, which extends well
beyond health care to include basic preconditions for health, such as potable water,
proper sanitation and nutrition ( Article 12.2 UDHR). There are myriad of norms and
principles contained in international instruments impacting an individual’s right to
health. In reference to a “highest attainable standard” of health, from the World
Health Organization constitution; it builds in an equanimity standard for nations to
follow. Even in International law the right to health has developed with alacrity
bringing about resultant constructive effect for the health policy worldwide. The
international human rights offer framework, in regards to the health which highlights
it as a fundamental issue of democracy and social justice, thereby signifying
opportunities for accountability.

In Paschim Banga Khet Majdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC 37, the
Supreme Court did not stop at declaring the right to health to be a fundamental right
and at enforcing that right of the laborer by asking the Government of West Bengal to
pay him compensation for the loss suffered. It directed the government to formulate
a blue print for primary health care with particular reference to treatment of patients
during an emergency. In Indian context, to lay emphasis on the reconceptualization
of the right to life, which impresses upon the state a positive obligation to safeguard
the life of every individual, by affirming that “preservation of human life was of
utmost importance” and that: “The Constitution envisages the establishment of a
welfare state … Providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential
part of the obligations undertaken by the government in this respect [and it]
discharges this obligation by running hospitals and health centers.”

Admittedly, health rights gained its significance largely as Supreme Court had
achieved parity between civil rights and their economic and social counterparts. It had
been made possible by employing a liberal definition of the right to life. Evidently, the
right to health was one of the guarantees to primary benefit. In Laxmi mandal vs.
Deen dayal Harinagar Hospital & Ors & and People”s Union for Civil Liberties vs.
Union of India also known as ‘PUCL case’ the Court focused on two inalienable survival
rights that form part of the right to life, both of which is categorically right to health
(which would include the right to access and receive a minimum standard of treatment
& care in public health facilities). Additionally, right to health is not independent of
right to healthcare and hence they must be seen in tandem.

Art. 25(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ensures right to standard of
adequate living for health and well being of the individual including medical care,
sickness and disability. Then there was a Declaration of Alma-Ata, International
Conference on Primary Health Care (1978) to this effect. At the worldwide level the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) mandates
right to health through Article 9 and Article 12 of the covenant. Also Articles 7 and 11
include health provisions: “The States Parties ... recognize the right of everyone to ...
just and favorable conditions of work which ensure ... safe and healthy working
conditions; ... the right to ... an adequate standard of living.” In fact India ratified
this Covenant on 10th April 1979, and having done that became obligated to take
measures to assure health and healthcare (among others) as a right. As per Articles 2
and 3 of this covenant States ratifying this treaty are obligated to; it is now around 30
years since India committed to this treaty. Post-ratification efforts through the Sixth
Five-year Plan and the first National Health Policy in 1982 were indeed the first steps
in exalting this commitment.

Indian constitutional recognition provides the framework for further statutory inroads.
“Duty of the State is to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to
improve public health. The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and
the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its
primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavor to bring about prohibition
of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs
which are injurious to health.” The court has always recognized the right to health as
being an integral part of the right to life ( Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India, 1989 4
SCC 286)

In Municipal Council, Ratlam vs. Vardhichand & Ors, the municipal corporation was
prosecuted by some citizens for not clearing up the garbage. The corporation took up
the plea that it did not have money. While rejecting the plea, the Supreme Court
through Justice Krishna Iyer observed: “The State will realize that Article 47 makes it
a paramount principle of governance that steps are taken for the improvement of
public health as amongst its primary duties.” Even in Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. Orissa
State, the court noted: Great achievements and accomplishments in life are possible
if one is permitted to lead an acceptably healthy life. Health is life’s grace and efforts
are to be made to sustain the same. In a Country like ours, it may not be possible. To
have sophisticated hospitals but definitely villagers of this Country within their
limitations can aspire to have a Primary Health Centre. The Government is required to
assist people, and its endeavor should be to see that the people get treatment and
lead a healthy life. Healthy society is a collective gain and no Government should
make any effort to smother it.
Likewise in 1991, in CESC Ltd. vs. Subash Chandra Bose, (AIR 1992 SC 573,585) the
Supreme Court relied on international instruments and concluded that right to health
is a fundamental right. Again in State of Punjab vs. Mohinder Singh Chawla, the
Supreme Court observed: It is now settled law that right to health is integral to right
to life. Government has constitutional obligation to provide the health facilities. The
Allahabad High Court in S.K. Garg vs. State of U.P., the High Court held that the
Supreme Court in Consumer Education and Research Centre and others v. Union of
India and others, 1995 (3) SCC 42 and in State of Punjab and others v. Mohinder Singh
Chawla had categorically stated that quality medical care is part of Right to Health
and Right & had held that the right to health is a part of the right to life guaranteed
by Article 21 of the Constitution. It is also relevant to notice as per the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Vincent Panikurlangara vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 990 -
(1987) 2 SCC 165, Unnikrishnan, JP vs. State of A.P., AIR 1993 SC 2178 - (1993) 1 SCC
645, the maintenance and improvement of public health is the duty of the State to
fulfil its constitutional obligations cast on it under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus,
Article 21 of the Constitution, as interpreted in a series of judgments of the Supreme
Court, has the legal effect of its justiciability.

II.b Role of NHRIs

The Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (or the “Paris Principles”
in brief) is the international standard for assessing the structure, competence, working
procedure and other features of national human rights institutions. These principles
provide guidelines for how institutions are to be independent from government and to
reflect the pluralism of society in its membership. They address both promotional and
protective aspects of the mandate of the institutions and add principles concerning
the quasi-jurisdictional competence of those commissions possessing such powers. The
standard-setting process did not achieve culmination until the holding of the first
International Workshop on National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of
Human Rights in Paris, 7–9 October 1991. The workshop resulted in a set of principles
and guidelines briefly titled the Paris Principles which was adopted by the Human
Rights Commission the following year. The main objective behind the composition of
the institutions is “to ensure the pluralist representation of the social forces (of
civilian society) involved in the promotion and protection of human rights”.

The Human Rights Act, 1993 sets out the legal framework of the NHRC. The NHRC’s
duty is not just to request a report from the administration but to investigate the
parties in the administration against whom the complaints are made. It has a primary
role to collect facts from various parties and make an unbiased conclusion. NHRC’s
ambit ranges from reviewing safeguards for the protection of human rights and
performing such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of
human rights and to realize the NHRC’s objective of “better protection of human
rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. The NHRC needs to
examine the cause of the numerous deaths cause by epidemic & gross neglect of the
public health authorities which will help identify those responsible. It is also to
discover the effectiveness of the local administration and public servants and to find
out what they have done for the deceased people, whose right to health was infringed
and their family members. If the investigation by the NHRC unearthed information that
the public servants were responsible due to their negligence it has a duty to make a
recommendation on prosecution and punishment to the relevant authorities. This is
what the NHRC has to do according to the Human Rights Act 1995. India despite being
a signatory to the Alma Ata Declaration of 1978, which promised ‘Health for All’ by
2000, is quite far from realizing this objective.

The law possibly is a functional scrutinizer and a supervisory body, by virtue of which
State healthcare authorities owe a duty of care to their patients; and, if they break
that duty and harm results, then liability may accrue in the tort of negligence. The
government health organization may itself be held to be liable in the tort of
negligence through “direct liability” for failure to provide a safe system for the
common masses. Judicial pronouncements acquire meaning only after constitutional
recognition of the Right to Health & Health care being human right and included under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the Right to Life. Supreme Court or the high
courts have upheld decision to this effect.

It was underlined in CERC vs. Union of India, Health and Health Care of Workers is an
essential component of right to life. The Court noted that the right to health and
health care of a worker is an element of the fundamental right to life guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court observed: Article 38(1) lays
down the foundation for human rights and enjoins the State to promote the welfare of
the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order in which
justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national
life. Art. 46 direct the State to protect the poor from social injustice and all forms of
exploitation. Article 39(e) charges that the policy of the State shall be to secure “the
health and strength of the workers”. Therefore, it must be held that the right to
health and medical care is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Articles
39(c), 41 and 43 of the Constitution and make the life of the workman meaningful and
purposeful with dignity of person. Right to life includes protection of the health and
strength of the worker is a minimum requirement to enable a person to live with
human dignity.

It is the function of the NHRIs, both National Human Rights Commission and Orissa
Human Rights Commission to inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a
victim or any person on his behalf [or on a direction or order of any court], into
complaint of (i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or (ii) negligence in the
prevention of such violation, by a public servant. Further, they are empowered to:

• intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human

rights pending before a court with the approval of such court;
• review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the
time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend
measures for their effective implementation;
• review the factors, including acts of terrorism that inhibit the enjoyment of
human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures;
• study treaties and other international instruments on human rights and make
recommendations for their effective implementation;
 • encourage the efforts of non-governmental organizations and institutions
working in the field of human rights.

Undoubtedly any violation of Article 21 by the State will give rise to a claim under
public law remedy. The State is also vicariously liable for acts of its agents or police or
Government hospitals. In the case of Peoples’ Union of Civil Liberties vs. Union of
India,PIL was filed against the Government for backing out of a project to build a
psychiatric hospital-cum-medical college in Delhi. Once the court took a broader view
of the scope and content of the fundamental right to life and liberty, there was no
looking back. Article 21 was interpreted to include a bundle of other incidental and
integral rights which clearly embraces right to health

III. Orissa Case

During the May and 2010, the State of Orissa has witnessed the death of 169 rural
tribal people due to denial of access to public health institutions. They died as they
had no access to appropriate and minimum medical care and treatment. Furthermore,
the extreme poverty made them more vulnerable. The victims sold off their minimum
resources what they had. Unfortunately, many of them sold off their voter identity
cards and BPL Cards to save their lives.

It was expected that the State Government will come for their rescue while
responding to the issue. Global Human Rights Communication urged the State
Government of Orissa seeking intervention in the interest of the people and
communities which suffer. Unfortunately, the State Government of Orissa did not even
provide an acknowledgment (see Table: 01).

Table: 01 Intervention sought from the State Government of Orissa

Sl. No Name of the Authorities Date Response from
the authorities
01 The Chief Secretary 03 September 2010 No Response
Government of Orissa
Bhubaneswar
02 The Secretary 03 September 2010 No Response
Dept. of Health & Family Welfare
Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar
03 The Secretary 24 August 2010 No response
Dept. of Health & Family Welfare
Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar
04 District Collector, Malakanagiri 02 July 2010 No response
05 Chief Secretary 02 July 2010 No response
Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar
06 Commissioner-cum-Secretary 02 July 2010 No response
Dept. of Health & Family Welfare
Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar
07 The District Collector , Koraput District 24 June 2010 No response
08 The Secretary 24 June 2010 No Response
Dept. of Health & Family Welfare
Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar
09 The Chief Secretary 24 June 2010 No response
 Government of Orissa
Bhubaneswar

A 20-member Doctors’ team led by the Joint Director and Deputy Director of Health
Department visited the diarrhea affected areas of Rayagada district on 5 September
2010. As per government figures, the death toll is 32. The government figures suggest
10 persons have died in Bisamkatak, 4 in Gudari, 4 in Gunupur, 7 in Kalyansinghpur, 6
in Kashipur and one in Raygada block1.

Under 12 (a) of the Protection human Rights Act-1993, Global Human Rights sought the
intervention of the National Human Rights Institutions to provide expeditiously justice.
Global Human Rights Communications filed the several petitions seeking immediate
action from national Human Rights Commission and Orissa Human Rights Commission.

III.a. Petition before National Human Rights Commission

On 27 June 2010 Global Human Rights Communications sought the immediate

intervention of the National Human Rights Commission against the death of 7 persons,
namely Bina Majhi (9 years), Bondo Majhi (6 years), Nandei Majhi(2 years), Nay Majhi
(1 year), Rupuli Majhi (19 years), Dambu Mahji (26 years) and Batri Majhi (52 years), of
the village Panbandh under Kashipur Block of Raygada District who died as they did not
get medical treatment on the complete failure of district health administration and
denial of access to health institutions. The relatives of the deceased approached the
health authorities to visit the village and treat the deceased. Unfortunately, the
authorities of District Health Administration denied visiting the village stating as the
village is not accessible by vehicle, and there is no proper road communication. D.
Bendudhar Nayak, the Chief District Medical Officer upon request by a group of
journalists for his visit to village, states, “Why do you the media people spread
exaggerated story, there are no such incidents”.

0n 2 July 2010 the National Human Rights Communication has been approached against
the death of 80 persons between May and June 2010 in Malakanagiri District of Orissa
due to the complete failure and serious negligence by the District Health Authorities,
including the Chief District Medical Officer of Malakanagiri. It is learnt from the
patients’ relatives, journalists and other concerned citizen that District Health
Administration was engaged in white washing the evidence and manipulating the
report when they badly needed to address the issues and provide appropriate
treatment to the patients.

On 5 July 2010 the National Human Rights Commission was petitioned against the
death of one Mrs. Kiyavati Nayak of the village Musukuri under Kashipur Block of
Rayagada District, Orissa. The petition claimed that one Mrs. Kiyavati Nayak of the
village Musukuri under Kashipur Block in Raygada Distct of Orissa died from malaria on
4th July 2010. It was due to the negligence of the health authorities, and for their
failure to provide treatment at appropriate time as requested by the deceased’s
relatives. The petition further stated that over 500 rural dalit and tribal people of
Raygada District of Orissa are suffering from malaria. The said petition expressed
1
http://orissadiary.com/CurrentNews.asp?id=21022
concern that the Rayagada District, Kashipur Block in particular, is severely affected
by malaria. Over 500 people are struggling for their lives.

On 24 July 2010 the National Human Rights Commission has been further approached
against the death of 9 persons due to denial of the public health services in Patrapur
block of Ganjan district of Orissa during July 17-23, 2010. Out of 9 persons, 5 children
are died as in the remote rural and tribal villages of Patrapur Block under Ganjam
District of Orissa due to denial of access to public health services in the Surangi and
Khariaguda Primary Health Centres. The sources revealed that the doctors, who are
staff of the primary health centres, were demanding money for the treatment and the
poor rural and tribal people did not pay as they had no capacity to make payment
towards the treatment. Many of the doctors from the above stated primary health
Centres engaged treating the people privately at their residences, which are provided
by the State Government of Orissa.

Regarding the deaths of 4 tribal children, namely Basanti Majhi (1.5 years), Sahadev
Majhi (5 years), Madhuri Nayak (7 years) and Parsuram Majhi (1 year) Kashipur Block of
Raygada District of Orissa during July 8-14, 2010 NHC was approached on 16 July 2010.
The doctors did not visit the area, and those who were brought to the primary health
centres of the District are also not attended properly as the tribals could not pay as
demanded by the doctors and other medical staff. One Madhuri Nayak, aged seven
years, daughter of Harihar Nayak of the village Hadkabahal of Kashipur block of
Rayagada District was admitted in Tikiri Primary Health centre. She was just given
saline water for three days, and she was not provided any medicine as her father could
not afford the cost of the medicine. She died in the hospital on 15th July early
morning. This had raised public protest and anger. The two tribal children, Sahadev
and Basangti, of Podapadar also died from Malaria without access to doctors, medicine
and treatment. On 10th July 2010, another tribal one year infant Parsuram Majhi also
died and he was the son of Lucky Majhi.

On 17 July 2010 another petition was filed before the National Human Rights
Commission against the death of 7 tribal persons, including 6 children Sayanti Majhi, a
girl of one and half year of the village Kadapar and other five persons of Kanuguda
village died from malaria, namely Tripati Majhi (aged 9 years), Jitendra Majhi (aged 5
years), Sumita Majhi (aged 10 years), Ratikanta Majhi (aged 6 years), Jhuri Majhi (aged
3 years) and Dhan Majhi (aged 32 years) during July 14-16, 2010, on account of the
failure and denial of right to health by the Orissa State. The petition narrated that the
inaction of the Health Authorities and the District Administration of the Raygada
District helped on the rise of the death toll of the poor tribal in the Kashipur block and
turned as a death valley for them.

On 24 July 2010 National Human Rights Commission was solicited for its immediate
intervention against the death of 9 persons due to denial of the public health services
in Patrapur block of Ganjan district of Orissa during July 17-23, 2010. The petition
explained that above stated persons, including 5 children are died as in the remote
rural and tribal villages of Patrapur Block under Ganjam District of Orissa due to denial
of access to public health services in the Surangi and Khariaguda Primary Health
Centres. It stated in the petition that due to rain, the water sources are
contaminated. All these people died from diarrhea and malaria, despite of the request
made by the local residents the doctors and other PHC staff did not come to affected
villages. Many other villages, over 100 people are affected, of Batrashi, baligaon,
Laida, Talbad, Gudipadar etc.

On 28 July 2010 National Human Rights Commission was sought to act against the
death of 6 persons due to denial of the public health services in Patrapur block of
Ganjan district of Orissa during July 24-27, 2010. It reported to NHRC that the vibrio
cholerae bacteria have been found in the Patrapur Block of Ganjam District since June
2010, and yet the health authorities have not taken any measures to control. The
Bacteria spreaded over, and claimed 24 lives in the block as on 27 July 2010. The
petition stated that the death toll is on the rise, both the district administration and
the health authorities are completely silence over the issue. It turned into the
epidemic. This region also has witnessed the effect of vibirio cholare bacteria in 2007,
which already claimed 143 lives of the rural tribal persons. It expressed concern that
over 100 persons of this region were struggling with their lives unattended, and
without access to minimum medical care and public health institutions. These people
are poor tribals. Many rural and tribal poor sold off their minimum belongings to save
the lives of their relatives. The contaminated water, as there are no safe drinking
water facilities, is used by the rural-tribal population. No minimum medical care and
access to public health services provided, and the poor are transferred to Andhra
Pradesh, and the doctors at Andhra Pradesh reported that many of them are brought
dead. The role of the department of health of the Orissa Government is full contrarily
to the basic human rights standards, including the right to health and control of
endemic epidemic, as guaranteed by the constitution of India, and several human
rights instruments, including the article 12 of the International Covenant of Economic
Social and Cultural Rights.

On 29th July 2010 the National Human Rights Commission was approached against the
death of Jagannath Das, aged 1 year, son of Congress Das of the Tota Sahi (slum for
scheduled caste) in Assika under Ganjam District of Orissa on 28th July 2010.
Jagannath Das has been admitted in the Government Hospital in Assika on 26th July
2010, and died on 28th July 2010. The water supplied by PHED in Assika is
contaminated, and not appropriate to drink. It is not safe as it looks complete black
and mixed with many floatables. Including Jaganath, over 200 persons are affected,
and they struggle with their lives. Unfortunately, one year old Jagannath died due to
unsafe drinking water provided by PHED of the State Government of Orissa. The
shocking news of the death of infant came when the whole world celebrates the joy as
the UN consider access to safe drinking water and sanitation as a component of the
right to an adequate standard of living, recognized in Article 11 of the Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, one year Jagannath died due to supply of unsafe
and polluted water provided by PHED of the Orissa Government.

Immediate intervention of the National Human Rights Commission was sought on 3

August 2010 against the death of 4 tribal persons due to denial of access to public
health institutions and minimum of medical care and treatment during July 26-August
2, 2010 in Gunupur block under Rayagada District of Orissa. it reported another 4
persons’ condition is said to be critical out of 30 persons are affected by endemic
cholera.
On 24 August 2010 Global Human Rights Communications wrote to seek National
Human Rights Commission’s immediate intervention against the death of 9 Indigenous
persons in Koraput and Raygada District in Orissa and over 100 persons are affected in
the region during August 12-23, 2010. The above stated 9 persons, mostly are from
indigenous tribal communities, was the native residents of the remote areas of the
Raygada and Koraput District of Orissa. They all died from extreme poverty and denial
of public health systems and minimum medical care. Since amidst of the May 2010, the
media, human rights institutions and civil society organizations are raising alarm of
extreme poverty and denial of minimum medical care in the said districts- to which-
the state government willfully ignored and caused factors for the rising of the death
toll of the tribes and other indigenous communities. The communities are not
accessing the public distribution system as they do not have the capacity to pay @INR
2 to have rice. They are compelled to eat the uneatable including aambtakua, rotten
meat collected from the dead animals. Further, due to consumption of the uneatable,
they suffer diarrhea, anthrax and other bacteria affected diseases. As they can not
afford and access the medicines and medical care, they die unattended. If few are
taken to private hospitals by their families’ members, all most sold off their land and
other minimum properties (e.g. utensils etc) and become worst sufferers. It is also
revealed the health authorities run private practice and gain illegal money and
resources from the victims.

On 27 August 2010 National Human Rights Commission was asked to intervene against
the death of two persons of Goilakana village under Bisamkatak Block in Rayagada
District of Orissa. It reported Mina Praska, aged about 75 and Chanchala Sahu of the
village Goilakana village under Bisamkatak Block in Rayagada District of Orissa died in
the Christian Hospital at Bisamkatak on 25th and 26th August 2010, and the condition
of four others of the same village is said to be critical. Further, it was stated that the
villagers were suffering extreme poverty, and they had no food for last one week,
aftermath of the continuous rain for three days. They ate uneatbles collecting from
forest and drank the contaminated water. In the village, no facilities are available for
safe drinking water, and the State machinery failed to provide them the minimum
food when they face hunger. The extreme poverty and hunger in the village claimed
two lives, and four others are said to be critical. The PDS cards are sold off @ INR 20
per month and Voter Cards are mortgaged as guarantee against the loan of INR 100.
Although, the region is infamous for hunger and diarrhea, the public health authorities
have not provided any care to the victims.
On 28 August 2010, NHRC was informed regarding Kandhmal District. It was asked
NHRC intervene against the death of 5 persons in Daringibadi Block of Kandhmal
District of Orissa and over 100 persons are affected in the block during August 21-27,
2010.The deaths were reported since 21 August in five remote villages under
Daringibadi public health centre. The disease had taken an epidemic form in
Hatimunda village in Hatimunda gram panchayat where one person died and about 20
others were affected. In Kallingi village under Tajungia GP the disease has claimed
two lives including a woman and affected 25 others. Similarly, in Danekbadi village
under the same GP a girl identified as Sasmita Baliarsingh died and seven others were
affected. At least 26 people including a number of children in Badangia villagia under
Sirkaburga GP and 20 persons in Gadapur village under same GP 20 people affected
with the disease during the period.
On 31 August 2010 the National Human Rights Commission was approached against the
death of 10 persons from indigenous communities from the Bisamkatak Block in
Rayagada District of Orissa during August 23-30, 2010. The petition narrated that
GHRC has been monitoring the issues of situation of right to health and human rights
of the indigenous communities in the poverty stricken KBK districts of Orissa and urged
many times to District Administration and the health authorities to save the lives-
there are report of deaths every week, and the death toll on the rise. I have also
informed more than ten times during June- August 2010 to National Human Rights
Commission seeking its urgent intervention. Unfortunately, the State authorities have
been neglecting the indigenous communities in the region and they die. There is a well
in Gadaba village, which is only water source in the village, is contaminated and
people suffered after they used the water from the well. The health authorities
neither purified the available water source nor take any adequate and appropriate
step to prevent the deaths in the region. It is unfortunate, 10 deaths occurred without
safe drinking water, and other 30 are affected.

02 September 2010, GHRC asked urgent intervention of National Human Rights

Commission Against the deaths of rural tribal people of Orissa since ealy June 2010. It
stated death toll is on the rise and the State Government of Orissa is completely
denying any medical service to the victims and badly failed to control the enedemic
epidemic in the State. 01. Parameswar Behera, 02. Sulochna Behera, 03. Krushna
Behera, 04. Banamber Behera, 05. Gokula Kahanar06. Bharat Bhukta of Khajuripada
Block and 07. Paramanand Dalbehera (62) from Panaspadar Village under Kusupandi
Gram panchayat in Phulbani District died during August17-31, 2010. Further, it is also
learnt that 6 persons, including Udhab Pujari (40) and Dumar Majhi (43), from
Mahulpadar GP under Papadahandi Block of Nabarangpur District died in diarrhea
during August 25- September 01, 2010.

On 3 September 2010 NHRC has been apprised of the situation of Orissa and asked
urgent intervention against the endemic epidemic Cholera rise in the State. It
explained that 11 more deaths occurred in the district of Malakangiri, Nabarangpur
and Rayagada. It further expressed concern that the epidemic of cholera spreaded to
more than 10 districts of Orissa.

On 6 September 2010 NHRC has also been apprised of 14 deaths in Pipalpadar

Grampanchayat under Laxmipur block in Koraput District during August1- September 3,
2010.

III.b Petition before Orissa Human Rights Commission

On 24 July 2010 Global Human Rights Commission filed a petition with Orissa Human
Rights Commision seeking justice for the 8 tribal students who were suffering in the
Bhimei Kanyashram in Baleswar District. On 24 July 2010 Orissa Human Rights
Commision was requested to intervene the matter of death of Mamata Swain, wife of
Danei Swain of the village Padajitpatna under Brahmagiri Police station of Puri
District. Mamata died on 22nd July 2010 in the District Hospital without any access to
medicine, care and treatment as denied by the Dr. BC chhotray.

On 26 July 2010 a petition was filed with Orissa Human Rights Commission against the
discrimination committed to HIV positive persons in Ganjam, and unfortunately they
were denied by the doctors for treatment.

On 26 July 2010 again another petition was filed with Orissa Human Rights commission
against the death two tribal persons, namely Sarathi Sabar and Saniya Bhuyan, of
Buratal Gram Panchayat of Ganjam District. They died without any access to public
health institutions as the primary health centre authorities denied to visit they as the
victims family could not afford their travel expenses.

On 2 August 2010 Global Human Rights Communications approached Orissa Human

Rights Commission against the negligence of the doctors at Dasrathpur Primary Health
Centre of Jajpur District where 70 students were suffering and struggling with lives.

III.C List of the deaths

Sl.No Name Age Address Date/Duration

.
01 Mulia Nayak 40 Beileiguda, Semiliguda 1-15 June, 2010
Koraput
02 Pati Dalei 50 Beileiguda, Semiliguda 1-15 June, 2010
Koraput
03 Mati Bhoi 28 Beileiguda, Semiliguda 1-15 June, 2010
Koraput
04 Bina Majhi 9 Panbandh, Kashipur, Rayagada 16-25 June,
2010
05 Bondo Majhi 6 Panbandh, Kashipur, Rayagada 16-25 June,
2010
06 Nandei Majhi 2 Panbandh, Kashipur, Rayagada 16-25 June,
2010
07 Nay Majhi 1 Panbandh, Kashipur, Rayagada 16-25 June,
2010
08 Rupuli Majhi 19 Panbandh, Kashipur, Rayagada 16-25 June,
2010
09 Dambu Mahji 26 Panbandh, Kashipur, Rayagada 16-25 June,
2010
10 Batri Majhi 52 Panbandh, Kashipur, Rayagada 16-25 June,
2010
11-90 80 persons Malakanagiri district May-June 2010
91 Kiyavati Nayak Musukuri, Kashipur, Rayagada 04 July 2010
92 Basanti Majhi 1.5 Podapadar, Kashipur, 16-25 June 2010
Rayagada
93 Sahadev Majhi 5 Podapadar, Kashipur, 16-25 June 2010
Rayagada
94 Madhuri Nayak 7 Hadkabahal Kashipur, 16-25 June 2010
Rayagada
95 Parsuram Majhi 1 Panbandh, Kashipur, Rayagada 16-25 June 2010
96 Tripati Majhi 9 Kanuguda, Kashipur, Rayagada 14-16 July 2010
97 Jitendra Majhi 5 Kanuguda, Kashipur, Rayagada 14-16 July 2010
98 Sumita Majhi 10 Kanuguda, Kashipur, Rayagada 14-16 July 2010
99 Ratikant Majhi 6 Kanuguda, Kashipur, Rayagada 14-16 July 2010
100 Jhuri Majhi 3 Kanuguda, Kashipur, Rayagada 14-16 July 2010
101 Dhan Majhi 31 Kanuguda, Kashipur, Rayagada 14-16 July 2010
102 Sayanti Majhi 1.5 Kadapadar,Kashipur, Raygada 14-16 July 2010
103 Brajhari Sabar 60 Batrasahi, Buratal, Ganjam 21 July 2010
104 Ganapati Sabar 40 Batrasahi, Buratal, Ganjam 21 July 2010
105 Daugther of 5 Batrasahi, Buratal, Ganjam 22 July 2010
Ganesh Sabar
106 Daugther of K. 1.5 Budagad, Patrapur, Ganjam 18 July 2010
Ramaro
107 Ruby Sethi 7 Budagad, Patrapur, Ganjam 21 July 2010
108 Son of Ganga 2 Budagad, Patrapur, Ganjam 23 July 2010
Guad
109 son of Gada minor Turubedi, Patrapur, Gnjam 23 July 2010
Sethi
110 Bhim Nayak Puriasahi, Patrapur, Ganjam 23 July 2010
111 Manguli Sabar Adpadar, Patrapur, Ganjam 24-27 July 2010
112 Brundaban Adpadar, Patrapur, Ganjam 24-27 July 2010
Behera
123 Jagannath Batrasahi, Patrapur Ganjam 24-27 July 2010
Bhuyan
114 Baradi Sabar Batrasahi, Patrapur Ganjam 24-27 July 2010
115 Jagili Sabar Batrasahi, Patrapur Ganjam 24-27 July 2010
116 Sabita 5 Batrasahi, Patrapur Ganjam 24-27 July 2010
117 Jagannath Das 1 Totasahi, Asika, Ganjam 28 July 2010
118 Kumari Sabar 23 Titimiri GP, Gunupur, Raygada 26 Jul- 2Aug
2010
119 Daupadi sabar 14 Titimiri GP, Gunupur, Raygada 26 Jul- 2Aug
2010
120 Saliki Sabar 60 Titimiri GP, Gunupur, Raygada 26 Jul- 2Aug
2010
121 4 years child 4 Ankareli, Gunupur, Rayagada 26 Jul- 2Aug
2010
122 Krishna Majhi Duluki, Kashipur, Rayagada 12-23 August
2010
123 Tulasi Majhi Sikarpai, Kashipur, Raygada 12-23 August
2010
124 Madhu Bhoi Bandamalihuga, Koraput 12-23 August
2010
125 Ras Maniaka Talsahi, Kalyansinghpur, 12-23 August
Rayagada 2010
126 Salba Huisika Upparkukmbha, 12-23 August
Kalyansighpur, Raygada 2010
127 Sundar Maniaka Talaanchalbadim 12-23 August
Kalyansinghpur, Rayagada 2010
128 Renji Majhi Tolamandijhola, Kashipur, 12-23 August
Rayagada 2010
129 Sashi Bhaoi Bandamalihuga, Koraput 12-23 August
2010
130 Rana Majhi, Tolamandijhola, Kashipur, 12-23 August
Rayagada 2010
131 Mina Praska 75 Goilakana, Bisamkatak, 25 August 2010
Rayagada
132 Chanchala Sahu Goilakana, Bisamkatak, 26 August 2010
Rayagada
133 Silpa Bindhani 6 Gadapur, Daringibadi, 21-27 August
Kandhmal 2010

134 Sukanti Malik Kallingi, Daringibadi,Kandhmal 21-27 August

2010
135 name not known Kallingi, Daringibadi,Kandhmal 21-27 August
2010
136 Nirani Malik Hatimunda, Daringibadi, 21-27 August
Kandhmal 2010
137 Sasmita Danekbadi, Daringibadi, 21-27 August
Baliyarsingh Kandhmal 2010
138 Dana Kundika 60 Gadba, Bisamkatak, Raygada 23-30 August
2010
139 Birsingh Kundika 35 Gadba, Bisamkatak, Raygada 23-30 August
2010
140 Praska Mangu 40 Gadba, Bisamkatak, Raygada 23-30 August
2010
141 Kundika Lachhi 50 Gadba, Bisamkatak, Raygada 23-30 August
2010
142 Sanmai Patika Gadba, Bisamkatak, Raygada 23-30 August
2010
143 an infant girl .5 yr Gadba, Bisamkatak, Raygada 23-30 August
2010
144 two villagers Kandhuga,Bisamkatak,Raygada 23-30 August
2010
146 two villagers Gayalkana village, 23-30 August
Bisamkatak, Rayagada 2010
148 Parameswar Khajuripada Block, Kandhmal 17-31 Aug 2010
Behera
149 Sulochna Behera Khajuripada Block, Kandhmal 17-31 Aug 2010

150 Krushna Behera Khajuripada Block, Kandhmal 17-31 Aug 2010

151 Banamber Khajuripada Block, Kandhmal 17-31 Aug 2010
Behera
152 Gokula Kahanar Khajuripada Block, Kandhmal 17-31 Aug 2010
153 Bharat Bhukta Khajuripada Block, Kandhmal 17-31 Aug 2010
154 Paramanand 62 Panaspada, Kandhmal 17-31 Aug 2010
Dalbehera
155 Udhab Pujari 40 Mahulpadar, Papadahandi, Aug 25- Sept 01,
Nabarangpur 2010
156 Dumar Majhi 43 Mahulpadar, Papadahandi, Aug 25- Sept 01,
Nabarangpur 2010
157 Dambaru Khara 65 Kalanadhia line, Balimela, 22 August 2010
Malkangiri
158 Bimala Khara Kalanadhia line, Balimela, 26 August 2010
Malkangiri
159 Aapna Khara 35 Kalanadhia line, Balimela, 25 August 2010
Malkangiri
160 Pinki Nayak 8 Paikbarangpadar, Nabrangpur 26Aug- 3 sep,
2010
161 Chitra Paik 50 Katahandi of Korapur 26Aug- 3 sep,
2010
162 Nalini Bidika 8 Batpadar, Bisamkatak, 26Aug- 3 sep,
Rayagada 2010
163 Sukru Badigam Bandhuguda, Bisamkatak, 26Aug- 3 sep,
Raygada 2010
164 Budu Garle Hatmuniguda GP, Bisamkatak, 26Aug- 3 sep,
Raygada 2010
165 Radhai Kulesika 35 Keskapadi, Laxmipur, Koraput 25-30 August
2010
166 Seva Hikka Keskapadi, Laxmipur, Koraput 25-30 August
2010
167 Rao Kulesika Keskapadi, Laxmipur, koraput 25-30 August
2010
168 Kedi Kulesika Keskapadi, Laxmipur, koraput 25-30 August
2010
169 Ani Mandika 53 Sangotiguda, Bisamkatak, 4 September
Rayagada 2010
170 Anju Mandagi 35 Pipalpadar, Laxmipur, Koraput
171 Dipai Mndagi 65 Pipalpadar, Laxmipur, Koraput September 3,
2010
172 Sal Mandangi 45 Pipalpadar, Laxmipur, Koraput
173 Mamata 4.5 Pipalpadar, Laxmipur, Koraput August 31, 2010
Mandangi
174 Dieswar Mandagi 1.5 Pipalpadar, Laxmipur, Koraput August 12, 2010
176 Two children Kebedi, Laxmipur, Koraput
177 Mutyalu Maniaka 3 Dhamanganda,Laxmipur,
Koraput
178 Name not known Baringa, Laxmipur
 179 Kuda Manding 70 Pipalpadar, Laxmipur, Koraput

IV. Response from NHRIs

IV.a National Human Rights Commission

Global Human Rights Communication has filed 16 cases before the National Human
Rights Commission. NHRC has not responded to 10, issued notice to concern
authorities, including Chieft Secretary and Health Secretary of Orissa in 3 cases,
transferred to Orissa Human Rights Commission under u/s 13(6) of the Protection of
Human Rights Act, 1993, as amended in 2 cases and considering the complaint in one
case.

Sl.No. Date Subject Response from authority

01 06 Sep 2010
02 03 Sep 2010 Complaint against 11 more No response
deaths in Orissa as endemic
epidemic is on the rise
03 02 Sep 2010 Complaint against 13 deaths No Response
in Orissa as denial and failure
of health services
04 31 Aug 2010 Death of 10 persons from No Response
indigenous communities from
the Bisamkatak Block in
Rayagada District of Orissa
during August 23-30, 2010
05 28 Aug 2010 Death of 5 persons in No response
Daringibadi Block of Kandhmal
District of Orissa and over 100
persons are affected in the
block during August 21-27,
2010
06 27 Aug 2010 death of two persons of No response
Goilakana village under
Bisamkatak Block in Rayagada
District of Orissa
07 24 Aug 2010 Death of 9 Indigenous persons No response
in Koraput and Raygada
District
Date: 24 August 2010
08 08 Aug 2010 Death of 9 persons in Siripai No response
Gram Panchayat under
Kahipur Blok in Rayagada
District of Orissa on 6th and
7th Augut 2010.
09 03 Aug 2010 Death of 4 tribal persons due
to denial of access to public
health institutions and
minimum of medical care and
treatment during July 26-
August 2, 2010
10 29 Jul 2010 Death of Jagannath Das, aged
1 year, son of Congress Das of
the Tota Sahi (slum for
scheduled caste) in Assika
under Ganjam District of
Orissa on 28th July 2010
11 24 Jul 2010 Death of 9 persons due to
denial of the public health
services in Patrapur block of
Ganjan district of Orissa
during July 17-23, 2010
12 20 Jul 2010 Death of 4 tribal persons,
namely Dayimati Pasi (aged 40
years), Ban Ulaka (aged 35
years), Rai Mundika (aged 27
years) and Tamba Pidikaka
(aged 45 years) during July 4-
19, 2010 in the Bisamkatak
block of Rayagada District of
Orissa
13 18 Jul 2010 Death of 6 persons, namely
namely Tripati Majhi (aged 9
years), Jitendra Majhi (aged 5
NHRC issued the direction,
sates, “The grievance raised
in this complaint relates to a
matter, which is a subject of
the State. Let the complaint
be transferred to the Orissa
State Human Rights
Commission u/s 13(6) of the
Protection of Human Rights
Act, 1993, as amended by
the Protection of Human
Rights (Amendment) Act,
2006, for disposal in
accordance with the
provisions of the Act”.
The grievance raised in this
complaint relate to the
matter, which is a subject of
the State. Let the complaint
be transferred to the Orissa
State Human Rights
Commission u/s 13 (6) of the
Protection of Human Rights
Act, 1993, as amended by
the Protection of Human
Rights (Amendment) Act,
2006, for disposal in
accordance with the
provisions of the Act
Issue notice to Secretary,
Ministry of Health, Govt. of
Orissa, Bhubneswar calling
for a report within four
weeks and Response from
concerned authority is
awaited.
The Complaint is under
consideration
Issue notice to concerned
authority, calling for a report
within four weeks and
 years), Sumita Majhi (aged 10 response from concerned
years), Ratikanta Majhi (aged authority is awaited.
6 years), Jhuri Majhi (aged 3
years) and Dhan Majhi (aged
32 years) under Kashipur
Block of Raygada District of
Orissa during July 14-16, 2010
from malaria as denial by
health authorities
14 05 Jul 2010 Death of Mrs. Kiyavati Nayak No response
of the village Musukuri under
Kashipur Block of Rayagada
District, Orissa
15 02 Jul 2010 Death of 80 persons suffering No response
from Malaria upon negligence
by public health authorities in
Malakanagiri District, Orissa
16 27 Jun 2010 Death of 7 persons, namely Notice issued to the Chief
Bina Majhi (9 years), Binod Secretary, Orissa calling for a
Majhi (6 years), Nandei report within four weeks by
Majhi(2 years), Nay Majhi (1 NHRC and response from
year), Rupuli Majhi (19 years), concerned authority is
Dambu Mahji (26 years) and awaited at NHRC
Batri Majhi (52 years), of the
village Panbandh under
Kashipur Block of Raygada
District of Orissa during June
16-25, 2010 from malaria as
denial by health authorities

IV.b. Orissa Human Rights Commission

Global Human Rights Communications had filed five cases regarding violation of the
right to health of the marginalized communities, tribal communities, students and
pregnant women in particular, by the state health authorities. Unfortunately, Orissa
Human Rights Commission has not intervened in a single case as on 06 th September
2010. The blatant violation of human rights and denial of access to human rights
institutions in the State, and it is committed by the Orissa Human Rights Commission
who is meant to respect, promote and protect human rights.
V. Findings
In to the cases of violations of the right to health in Orissa, Global Human Rights
Communications in its petitions had demanded that NHRC and OHRC to intervene by
taking following measures:

• Direction for the investigation into the cases by impartial authorities

• Direction for the suspension of the involved health authorities to prevent
further malpractice during the investigation
• Direction for taking disciplinary action and bring the culprits into court of
justice
• Direction for the compensation of INR 10 lakh each to next kin of the victims
• Direction for health policy and budgetary allocation to prevent further
epidemic and unwanted situation
• Direction for the compliance of the human rights norms and principles set and
the State has obligations to its National Constitution of India and international
instruments

The complaint handling mechanism at Orissa Human Rights Commission badly failed as
there are no responses made to the petitions, not even acknowledgement provided.
The OHRC itself denied the access to National Human Rights Institution mechanism,
and contributed pathways for establishing impunity in Orissa and miscarriage of
justice.

The National Human Rights Commission although registered the cases only in the two
cases “Issued notice to the Chief Secretary and Health Secretary of Orissa”2. In
another two cases3, transmitted the petition to Orissa Human Rights Commission. The
NHRC direction states, “The grievance raised in this complaint relate to the matter,
which is a subject of the State. Let the complaint be transferred to the Orissa State
Human Rights Commission u/s 13 (6) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as
amended by the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006, for disposal in
accordance with the provisions of the Act4”.

Unfortunately, NHRC did not respond to the petitions in time and violated section 8 of
the National Human Rights Commission (procedure) Regulation Act-1996, which states,
“All complaints in whatever form received by the Commission, shall be registered and
assigned a number and placed for admission as per the special and general directions
of the Chairperson before a single member bench constituted for the purpose, not
later than one week of the receipt thereof”.
2 Case Details of File Number: 1085/18/32/2010

3 Case file number: Case Details of File Number: 1122/18/32/2010, and Case Details of File Number: 1148/18/5/2010
4 Supra
Global Human Rights Communications’ complaints are grave as the death toll is on the
rise in the state, which requires prompt action. NHRC transferred the cases to Orissa
Human Rights Commission-a defunct body. Without hearing the petitioner, the transfer
of complaint is utter denial of principles of natural justice.

Thus it is recommended
• NHRIs, both National Human Rights Commission and Orissa Human Rights
Commission, must act in accordance with the laws and procedures made for
the protection of human rights i.e. The Human Rights Protection Act-1993
and its procedures of regulations and the Paris Principles.
• NHRC must constitute a team and place them for on-the-spot study and make
it public with its finding
• NHRC must direct the State Government of Orissa for relief, rescue, and
rehabilitation along with health policy to prevent further unwanted situation,
along with the direction for bringing the culprit into court of justice.
• OHRC must act expeditiously to the cases transferred from NHRC and must
break its dead sleep.
• The State Government of Orissa must stop the deaths by taking action
preventively and fixing accountability of its health authorities. It must
provide the compensation to the next kin of the victims.
VI. Abbreviation

GHRC Global Human Rights Communication

ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
NHRC National Human Rights Commission
NHRIs National Human Rights Institutions
OHRC Orissa Human Rights Commission
PUCL Peoples Union for Civil Liberties
SC Supreme Court of India
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights