Four missing after Kota immersion capsize at prohibited canal site

Four people were still missing—not confirmed dead—after a boat capsized during a Durga idol immersion in Kota, Rajasthan, at a stretch of canal officials said should not have been used for the ceremony. Rescue teams had been stationed at designated immersion sites elsewhere; near Steel Bridge, municipal divers had to be dispatched after the emergency began. ^{1 42}

The small wooden boat was carrying seven people when it overturned in Kotri canal on Tuesday evening, October 20, 2026. Three reached safety. Divers continued searching after midnight, and authorities stopped the canal’s water flow to help the operation. No recovery or confirmed fatality was documented in the overnight updates. ^{1 42}

City Superintendent of Police Tejaswini Gautam said three occupants knew how to swim and managed to get out, while the other four could not swim. Rajasthan Education Minister Madan Dilawar also gave the seven-aboard, three-safe, four-missing account, saying the three swam and received help from people nearby. These descriptions need not compete: swimming out and being helped by residents could have been successive parts of the same escape. ^{28 1}

Early reporting was less consistent. Navbharat Times initially described five children swept away and two rescued. That earlier account should not displace the tally subsequently supported by both named officials. Nor do descriptions of the missing as “children” or “youths” establish their ages; no confirmed list with full identities and ages was available. ^{9 1 28}

The accident occurred near Steel Bridge within Udhyog Nagar police station limits. The consistent chronology places it on Tuesday evening. News75 reported an approximate time of 5:30 p.m., but no official incident-log time established the exact minute of the capsize. ^{11 12}

The response brought together the State Disaster Response Force, the National Disaster Response Force, Kota Municipal Corporation divers, civil defence teams and local administration personnel. The Times of India reported approximately 15–17 state disaster response personnel; that was one contingent, not the total strength of the multi-agency search. ¹

Stopping the canal’s flow was intended to assist rescuers searching the water. The available accounts do not establish when the stoppage began, how long it lasted or how much residual flow remained. It would therefore be wrong to assume that stopping the supply immediately left divers in still water. ^{1 2}

Dilawar directed the district administration to launch an immediate search and went to the scene. District Collector Piyush Samariya and Gautam also attended. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla visited at night and directed teams to intensify efforts to locate the four missing people. Those visits established official attention, but not a rescue outcome. ^{1 13}

An IANS follow-up published by Dainik Hawk at 12:25 a.m. IST on October 21 still described divers searching and four people missing. That is an overnight reporting checkpoint, not a continuously verified count through the morning. No later authoritative recovery bulletin was available to establish whether anyone had since been found. ⁴²

Municipal Deputy Commissioner Rakesh Vyas said teams were sent from KST as soon as the accident near Steel Bridge was reported. This was not one of the designated immersion locations where municipal teams had initially been deployed. The distinction matters: at a prepared site, rescuers were already stationed nearby; here, an emergency response first had to be sent to the location. ¹

Gautam said designated sites had boats, divers and rescue teams, and that the administration could not provide those arrangements at every point along the canal. She urged people to use the designated locations. Her explanation describes the limits of rescue coverage; it does not establish how the restrictions at this particular stretch were communicated or enforced. ²⁸

“The canal area is prohibited for immersion, and no idol ceremony is permitted in the canal in the area; even then, some people performed it,” Dilawar told reporters, according to The Times of India. The formal restriction order, its issuing authority and its precise geographical limits were not available. His statement supports describing the location as prohibited for immersion, but does not by itself settle legal responsibility or establish what enforcement action will follow. ¹

Dilawar also called the boat unsafe and said it overturned in the middle of the canal. That is an official assessment of the boat, not a completed finding about the cause. There was no verified determination of overloading, structural failure or another specific mechanism that made it capsize. ¹

The immediate task remains accounting for the four missing occupants. The next authoritative update needs to establish whether any have been found, their condition and their confirmed identities. Separately, any investigation must distinguish why the boat overturned from why an immersion took place at a stretch without the rescue arrangements available at designated sites. Neither question is answered simply by calling the boat unsafe or the location prohibited.