Of Child Rights & Ors. vs Dr. Rajesh Kumar & Ors.

Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 – s.13(2) – Whether s.13(2) of the CPCR Act places the two Commissions (the NCPCR and the State Commission) in water-tight compartments where they oust the jurisdiction of each other – Held: There is no question of ouster of jurisdiction of any Commission – The only constraint placed by s.13(2) is that if the State Commission has already started an inquiry, the National Commission should naturally refrain from inquiring into the matter – This, however, does not mean that the National Commission cannot go into the other larger questions which may have led to the specific incidents of violation of child rights which need to be inquired into – Insofar, the inter-State or international ramifications e.g. a child is being illegally sent for adoption abroad – Here again, if the State Commission in such a case asks for assistance from the National Commission or some other State Commission where the child may have been illegally trafficked, the National Commission or the other State Commission(s) should cooperate with the Commission inquiring into the matter – Both the Commissions have to work for the best interest of the children in a spirit of cooperation.

Partly disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The following three questions arise for decision in this case:

(i)

Whether the matter in hand was pending before the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights before the NCPCR took cognizance on

03.03.2017 and started inquiry on 07.03.2017?

(ii) Whether Section 13 (2) of the CPCR Act places the two Commissions (the NCPCR and the State

Commissions) in water-tight compartments where they oust the jurisdiction of each other?

(iii) Whether in a case which has inter-State or international ramifications the jurisdiction, if any, of the NCPCR can be ousted? [Para 11][985-B-D]

2. As far as the aforementioned questions framed are concerned, this Court answers the Question No.1 by holding that in the facts of the present case, the WBCPCR had not started an inquiry till 07.03.2017. As far as Question No. 2 is concerned, this Court is of the view that there is no question of ouster of jurisdiction of any Commission. The only constraint placed by Section 13(2) is that if the State Commission has already started an inquiry, the National Commission should naturally refrain from inquiring into the matter. This, however, does not mean that the National Commission cannot go into the other larger questions which may have led to the specific incidents of violation of child rights which need to be inquired into. With regard to Question No.3 this Court holds that even a State Commission has the power to inquire into those matters which fall within its purview and even if the illegality is such that it has inter-State or international ramifications, e.g. a child is being illegally sent for adoption abroad. Here again, this Court is of the view that if the State Commission in such a case asks for assistance from the National Commission or some other State Commission where the child may have been illegally trafficked, the National Commission or the other State Commission(s) should cooperate with the Commission inquiring into the matter. [Para 36][1000-D-F]

3. As clearly held, both the Commissions have to work for the best interest of the children in a spirit of cooperation. Unfortunately, in this case, there has been no cooperation rather mudslinging at each other. This Court would like to reiterate and re-emphasise that there are no jurisdictional issues involved. [Para 37][1000-G-H]

4. Police officials should realise that when the Commissions constituted under the CPCR Act ask for some relevant information, they must respectfully reply to the same and not rake up the dispute of so-called ‘jurisdiction’. Even the police officials must realise that these Commissions have been constituted for the welfare of the children. Even assuming that the WBCPCR had started an inquiry, there is no reason why ADGP, CID could not have provided the information to the NCPCR. It was not for him to question the jurisdiction of the NCPCR. If any official is asked for information by any of the Commissions, he is duty bound to reply to the letters of the Commission. One Commission may raise the issue that since it is seized of the matter and is inquiring into it, the National Commission should not start another inquiry, but it is not for the officials to raise such an issue. Whether an inquiry has actually been initiated or not cannot be decided by an official. This has to be decided either by the Commission or by a Court of law. Therefore, in view of this Court, ADGP, CID would have been better advised to furnish information to the NCPCR rather than challenging the jurisdiction of the NCPCR. [Para 33][999-C-E]

5. In view of the above, this Court is clearly of the view that ADGP, CID should have furnished the information which appears to now have been furnished by the State authorities. If such information has not been furnished, the present incumbent holding the post of ADGP, CID, West Bengal is directed to furnish the information to the National Commission as well as to Juvenile Justice Committee of the High Court of Calcutta within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The counsel for the State of West Bengal shall inform the present Additional Director General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, West Bengal of these directions.[Para 38] [1001-A-B]