National and State Child Rights Commissions: Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in child trafficking case (13 January 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 13 January 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 19
Judges: Deepak Gupta, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

When a child’s rights are violated, who steps in to protect them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving allegations of child trafficking. The Court clarified the roles and responsibilities of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights, emphasizing their duty to cooperate and prioritize the welfare of children above all else. This judgment arose from a dispute between the NCPCR and the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights (WBCPCR) regarding their respective powers to investigate a child trafficking case.

Case Background

In February 2017, news reports surfaced alleging large-scale child trafficking at a child-care institution in Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) took note of these reports on March 3, 2017, and sent two members to Jalpaiguri on March 7, 2017, to investigate. They requested information from state officials, which they claim was not provided. Subsequently, the NCPCR summoned the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), Criminal Investigation Department (CID), West Bengal, to appear before them. Instead of appearing, the ADGP filed a writ petition challenging the NCPCR’s jurisdiction. The High Court stayed the NCPCR’s summons, stating that since the State Commission had already taken cognizance of the matter on February 24, 2017, the NCPCR had no jurisdiction.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court, by its order dated 29.08.2017, stayed the direction of the NCPCR, primarily because the State Commission had taken cognizance of the matter on 24.02.2017, thus, the NCPCR had no jurisdiction. This order was challenged in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (CPCR Act) establishes the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights. Section 13 of the CPCR Act outlines the functions and powers of the National Commission, while Section 24 vests the same powers in the State Commissions.

Section 13 of the CPCR Act states:

“13. Functions of Commission.­ (1) The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:­
(a) examine and review the safeguards provided by or under any law for the time being in force for the protection of child rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation;
(b) present to the Central Government, annually and at such other intervals, as the Commission may deem fit, reports upon the working of those safeguards;
(c) inquire into violation of child rights and recommend initiation of proceedings in such cases;
(d) examine all factors that inhibit the enjoyment of rights of children affected by terrorism, communal violence, riots, natural disaster, domestic violence, HIV/AIDS, trafficking, maltreatment, torture and exploitation, pornography and prostitution and recommend appropriate remedial measures;
(e) look into the matters relating to children in need of special care and protection including children in distress, marginalized and disadvantaged children, children in conflict with law, juveniles, children without family and children of prisoners and recommend appropriate remedial measures;
(f) study treaties and other international instruments and undertake periodical review of existing policies, programmes and other activities on child rights and make recommendations for their effective implementation in the best interest of children;
(g) undertake and promote research in the field of child rights;
(h) spread child rights literacy among various sections of the society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for protection of these rights through publications, the media, seminars and other available means;
(i) inspect or cause to be inspected any juvenile custodial home, or any other place of residence or institution meant for children, under the control of the Central Government or any State Government or any other authority, including any institution run by a social organisation; where children are detained or lodged for the purpose of treatment, reformation or protection and take up with these authorities for remedial action, if found necessary;
(j) inquire into complaints and take suo motu notice of matters relating to,­
(i) deprivation and violation of child rights;
(ii) non­implementation of laws providing for protection and development of children;
(iii) non­compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating hardships to and ensuring welfare of the children and to provide relief to such children,
or take up the issues arising out of such matters with appropriate authorities; and
(k) such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of child rights and any other matter incidental to the above functions.
(2) The Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force.”

The Court noted that Section 13(2) of the CPCR Act states that the National Commission shall not inquire into any matter pending before a State Commission or any other duly constituted commission.

Arguments

The core of the dispute revolves around whether the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights (WBCPCR) had already initiated an inquiry into the child trafficking allegations before the NCPCR intervened.

• The **NCPCR** argued that it took cognizance of the matter on 03.03.2017, and its members visited Jalpaiguri on 07.03.2017, to conduct an inquiry. They contended that the WBCPCR had not started any inquiry before their intervention. They also argued that the matter had inter-state and international ramifications, which required the NCPCR’s intervention.
• The **WBCPCR** argued that it had taken suo motu cognizance of the matter on 30.01.2017, based on a newspaper report and had initiated an inquiry before the NCPCR. They contended that the NCPCR was barred from inquiring into the matter under Section 13(2) of the CPCR Act.
• The **ADGP, CID, West Bengal** challenged the jurisdiction of the NCPCR to summon him, arguing that the WBCPCR was already seized of the matter.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the matter 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?
2. Whether Section 13 (2) of the CPCR Act places the two Commissions in water-tight compartments where they oust the jurisdiction of each other?
3. Whether in a case which has inter-State or international ramifications the jurisdiction, if any, of the NCPCR can be ousted?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court referred to the following authorities:

• Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005, P. Ramanatha Aiyar: Defined the term “inquire.”

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the WBCPCR had not initiated an inquiry before the NCPCR started its inquiry on 07.03.2017. The Court clarified that Section 13(2) of the CPCR Act does not create a strict jurisdictional bar between the two commissions. Instead, it aims to prevent duplication of effort. If a State Commission has already begun an inquiry, the National Commission should refrain from a parallel inquiry into the same matter. The Court also clarified that both the State and National Commissions have the power to inquire into matters with inter-state or international ramifications.

The Court observed that neither the State Commission (WBCPCR) nor the National Commission (NCPCR) had shown sufficient alacrity in addressing the issue of child trafficking. The Court noted that the WBCPCR, despite taking suo motu cognizance on 30.01.2017, took no effective steps to inquire into the matter until 10.03.2017. The Court also criticized the NCPCR for focusing more on settling scores with the State Commission and officials rather than addressing the plight of the children.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure the protection of child rights and the proper functioning of child rights commissions. The Court emphasized that these commissions must prioritize the welfare of children and work in a spirit of cooperation. The Court was critical of both the State and National Commissions for their lack of alacrity and their focus on jurisdictional disputes rather than the substantive issues of child trafficking. The Court also noted the lack of cooperation from the State officials, particularly the ADGP, CID, West Bengal.

The court’s reasoning was a blend of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The court examined the timeline of events, the actions of both the commissions, and the relevant legal provisions to arrive at its decision.

Logical Reasoning

The Court rejected the argument that the WBCPCR had initiated an inquiry before the NCPCR’s intervention, based on the evidence presented. The Court interpreted Section 13(2) of the CPCR Act to mean that the National Commission should not inquire into a matter if the State Commission has already started an inquiry into the same matter, but it does not completely bar the National Commission from inquiring into larger issues. The Court also held that both the State and National Commissions have the power to inquire into matters with inter-state or international ramifications.

The Court emphasized the need for cooperation between the two commissions and criticized their focus on jurisdictional disputes rather than the welfare of children. The Court also expressed its disapproval of the conduct of the ADGP, CID, West Bengal, for not cooperating with the NCPCR.

The Court stated, “We see no reason why there should be any disharmony and lack of coordination between these two institutions. This non­cooperation and lack of coordination can only occur when the persons manning the institutions put their own interests over the interest of the children.”

The Court also observed, “The people who are appointed to such commissions must in a true sense be friends of the children, willing to spend their time and energy to help children rather than pushing their own personal or political interest.”

The Court further stated, “We are, in this case, mainly concerned with Section 13(2) of the CPCR Act, which states that the National Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force.”

Key Takeaways

• Child rights commissions (both national and state) must prioritize the welfare of children above all else.
• There should be a spirit of cooperation between the National and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights.
• Section 13(2) of the CPCR Act does not create a strict jurisdictional bar; it aims to prevent duplication of effort.
• Both the National and State Commissions have the power to inquire into matters with inter-state or international ramifications.
• State officials must cooperate with the Commissions and provide the information sought by them.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the current ADGP, CID, West Bengal, to furnish the required information to the National Commission and the Juvenile Justice Committee of the Calcutta High Court within 15 days. The Court also directed the Calcutta High Court to monitor the larger issues of appointment of Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) and heads of CWCs in the state of West Bengal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the National and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights must work in cooperation and not in conflict. The judgment clarifies that the bar under Section 13(2) of the CPCR Act is not a strict jurisdictional bar but a measure to prevent duplication of effort.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the National and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights. The Court emphasized the need for cooperation and the priority of child welfare. The judgment also highlights the importance of proper functioning of child rights institutions and the need for state officials to cooperate with them.