Understanding the Guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of NCPRC & ORs Vs Dr. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Civil Appeal No.7968 of 2019.

It was felt expedient to enact a law constituting special commissions to protect the rights of children. Parliament enacted the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPCR Act’). The CPCR Act envisages the constitution of a National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCPCR/National Commission’) under Section 3 and the State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (hereinafter referred to as ‘State Commissions’) under Section 17.
The goal which they both set out to achieve is the same, viz., protecting children from all sorts of abuse, exploitation etc. 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. It is only when those in charge of such commissions give themselves so much importance that they forget that they are the creation of statute, the only purpose of which is to protect children.
it appears that news reports were published some time in February, 2017 indicating that a childcare institution based in Jalpaiguri in West Bengal had indulged in large scale trafficking of children. The NCPCR took cognizance of these reports on 03.03.2017 and two members of the NCPCR went to Jalpaiguri on 07.03.2017. They requested the State officials to provide them some information which, according to the NCPCR, was not provided. They finally summoned the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), Criminal Investigation Department (CID), West Bengal (Respondent no.1 herein) to appear before the NCPCR. This gentleman, instead of appearing before the NCPCR, chose to file a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the NCPCR to summon him.
Section 13 of the CPCR Act deals with the functions and powers of the National Commission. Section 24 of the CPCR Act vests the same functions and powers in the State Commissions They must function only for the protection and betterment of children. These commissions cannot become sources of power, self aggrandisement or means of obtaining the trappings of power like official cars, bungalows etc. 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.
we do not refer to the ‘Jurisdictions’ and deal with the ‘functions and powers’ of the Commissions then matters become much simpler. There is no ouster of jurisdiction like in the case of courts. Both the Commissions have similar powers and functions. The jurisdiction of the State Commissions is limited to the State for which such Commission is constituted whereas the National Commission has jurisdiction all over the country and can inquire into any matter in any State.
It envisages the Commission playing an active role in ascertaining the facts relating to the three circumstances dealt with in this provision. It is more than just sending a letter. It is more akin to a preliminary inquiry and if such inquiry indicates that the rights of the children have been violated or the laws have not been implemented or the policy decisions or guidelines have been violated then the Commission. must also suggest remedial measures.
We are dealing with children who cannot complain. The Commissions are meant to protect children who have no voice. The Commission can, thereafter, take action by itself if permitted under law or can recommend initiation of proceedings in accordance with law.
Any Commission, while conducting an inquiry under Section 13(1)(j) has been given wide powers akin to that of a civil court and has a right to forward any case to a magistrate and the magistrate is required to deal with such case forwarded to him as if the case has been forwarded to him under Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The follow up action which a Commission can take is also clearly set out in Section 15 of the CPCR Act which empowers the Commission to make recommendations to the concerned Government or authority for initiation of proceedings including prosecution or such other action as the Commission may deem fit. This is a recommendatory power but normally we would expect that the Government would accept the recommendation of the Commission in this regard. The second power given to the Commission is to approach the Supreme Court or the High Court for an appropriate writ, order or direction. The Commission can also recommend the grant of interim relief to a victim under Section 15(iii) of the CPCR Act. The aforesaid provisions which set out the powers relating to inquiries and steps to be taken thereafter clearly indicate that the inquiry contemplated is more than only gathering of information, and is more in the nature of
an investigation or inquisition.
Any Commission, while conducting an inquiry under Section 13(1)(j) has been given wide powers akin to that of a civil court and has a right to forward any case to a magistrate and the magistrate is required to deal with such case forwarded to him as if the case has been forwarded to him under Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The follow up action which a Commission can take is also clearly set out in Section 15 of the CPCR Act which empowers the Commission to make recommendations to the concerned Government or authority for initiation of proceedings including prosecution or such other action as the Commission may deem fit. This is a recommendatory power but normally we would expect that the Government would accept the recommendation of the Commission in this regard. The second power given to the Commission is to approach the Supreme Court or the High Court for an appropriate writ, order or direction. The Commission can also recommend the grant of interim relief to a victim under Section 15(iii) of the CPCR Act. The aforesaid provisions whichset out the powers relating to inquiries and steps to be taken
thereafter clearly indicate that the inquiry contemplated is more than only gathering of information, and is more in the nature of an investigation or inquisition.
The National Commission was definitely entitled to inquire as to why proper CWCs had not been constituted and under what orders were ad hoc CWCs functioning.
NCPCR sent on 24.07.2017 informing Dr. Rajesh Kumar ADGP, CID, West Bengal that if he did not appear before the National Commission, action against him will be taken under Section 166A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, Dr. Rajesh Kumar sent a detailed reply challenging the authority of 31 the National Commission to summon him and also taking exception to the language used in the letter. We fail to understand why this police official took such a step. We may mention that he has not been served despite various attempts by this Court. It appears to us that he does not want to appear before us on one pretext or the other. We are constrained to observe that from a perusal of the documents on record it is apparent that he did not cooperate with the National Commission. The answer given by the State CID to the NCPCR is that the documents are lying with the Court. We are sure that a senior IPS official of the level of Dr. Rajesh Kumar must be aware that copies of all documents are also kept by the police before filing them in Court. Why could these documents not be provided to the National Commission? At least those documents that had nothing to do with the criminal aspect of the case but dealt with formation of the ad hoc committees and the absence of a properly constituted CWC could have been provided.
Police officials should realise that when the Commissions instituted 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 realize that these Commissions have been constituted for the welfare of the children.