NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS & ORS. versus DR. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 976 · Decided: 13-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
976
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION
OF CHILD RIGHTS & ORS.
v.
DR. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7968 of 2019)
JANUARY 13, 2020
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 –
Furnishing of information by the police official – There were news
reports in February, 2017 indicating that a child-care institution in
West Bengal had indulged in large scale trafficking of children –
NCPCR took cognizance of these reports on 03.03.2017 and two
members of the NCPCR went to the State and requested the State
officials to provide them some information which, according to the
NCPCR, was not provided – ADGP, CID was summoned to appear
before the NCPCR – ADGP filed writ petition challenging the
jurisdiction of the NCPCR to summon him – The High Court stayed
the direction of the NCPCR mainly on the ground that since the
State Commission had taken cognizance of the matter on 24.02.2017,
the NCPCR had prima facie, no jurisdiction – On appeal, held: If
any official is asked for information by any of the Commissions, he
is duty bound to reply to the letters of the Commissions – 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, ADGP should have
furnished the information to the NCPCR rather than challenging
the jurisdiction of the NCPCR.
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 –
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 976
976
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
977
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
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD
RIGHTS v. DR. RAJESH KUMAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.