The Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission (APSHRC) has directed the state government to pay Rs 3 lakh compensation to the next of kin of Bamang Tach, a daily wage worker who died of electrocution in Kamle district in August 2023.
Tach died on August 3, 2023, after coming into contact with an unattended and sagging live 11-kV transmission line near Pakrijo/Bus Camp in Boasimla. He was carrying GI pipes for work under the Jal Jeevan Mission when the incident occurred.
While disposing of Case No. AR/SHRC/Case/9/2024 pursuant to its judgment dated June 26, 2026, the single-member bench of the APSHRC, chaired by Bamang Tago, held the Department of Power (Electrical), Raga Division, responsible for violating the deceased’s fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Tach’s son, Bamang Rikam, had approached the commission after the Power Department failed to respond to his request for compensation.
The police had registered an unnatural death case, No. 01/2023, and found no evidence of foul play. While the initial medical record certified the cause of death as “cardiopulmonary arrest due to electrocution”, a subsequent postmortem report cited a different cause.
The commission, however, observed that Tach’s death was a direct result of the authorities’ failure to properly maintain and ensure the safety of the live transmission line.
“Such omission constitutes an infringement of the deceased’s fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and amounts to a violation of human rights within the meaning of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993,” Tago observed.
The commission directed the state government to pay the compensation to Bamang Rikam through the Department of Power within four months of receiving the order.
It also directed the Power Department to formulate and implement a standard operating procedure for the maintenance of high-voltage transmission lines. The SOP must include mandatory periodic inspections, hazard assessments, warning signs, barricading, vegetation clearance, temporary shutdowns during hazardous work and emergency response mechanisms.
The commission further directed the Chief Secretary to ensure that all departments dealing with hazardous public utilities develop inter-departmental safety protocols to protect workers and members of the public operating near live electrical infrastructure.
The Chief Secretary has also been asked to submit an action-taken report to the commission within the stipulated period.
Advocate Ebo Mili, appearing for the complainant, argued that the authorities could not escape liability merely because Tach came into contact with the live line while carrying a metallic pipe. He stressed that authorities responsible for hazardous electrical infrastructure have a continuing duty of care, particularly where the risk to workers is foreseeable.
Citing Supreme Court judgments in Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa (1993) and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi (2000), Mili argued that monetary compensation under public law is an appropriate remedy when the right to life under Article 21 is violated. He also submitted that electricity authorities carry a heightened responsibility to prevent such incidents.
Mili also submitted an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the complainant, challenging the department’s position. The commission noted that these submissions played a significant role in its findings on liability and compensation.
Although an earlier departmental inquiry had denied any leakage or safety lapse, a subsequent official communication acknowledged that the transmission line had sagged and that current leakage was present.
The commission noted that no precautionary measures, including warning signs, barricades, temporary power shutdown, insulation or supervision, had been put in place despite labourers working beneath the live line while carrying long metallic pipes.
The commission also noted that earlier requests by local villagers to rectify the hazardous transmission line had gone unheeded.
The medical officer later clarified on oath that the inconsistent postmortem finding was an inadvertent error and reaffirmed electrocution as the cause of death.
The APSHRC observed that preventive safety measures relating to hazardous public utilities are constitutional obligations under Article 21 and cannot be treated as matters of administrative discretion.
Advocate Ebo Mili, who is also chairperson of North East Human Rights, has written to the Chief Secretary seeking prompt instructions to the Power Department to ensure timely payment of the compensation to the deceased’s family.
