NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS & ORS. versus DR. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. on 13 January 2020

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2020] 1 S.C.R.

ANATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTIONOF CHILD RIGHTS & ORS.

v.

DR. RAJESH KUMAR & ORS.

B(Civil Appeal No. 7968 of 2019)

JANUARY 13, 2020

[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]

Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 –CFurnishing of information by the police official – There were newsreports in February, 2017 indicating that a child-care institution inWest Bengal had indulged in large scale trafficking of children –NCPCR took cognizance of these reports on 03.03.2017 and twomembers of the NCPCR went to the State and requested the Stateofficials to provide them some information which, according to theDNCPCR, was not provided – ADGP, CID was summoned to appearbefore the NCPCR – ADGP filed writ petition challenging thejurisdiction of the NCPCR to summon him – The High Court stayedthe direction of the NCPCR mainly on the ground that since theState Commission had taken cognizance of the matter on 24.02.2017,Ethe NCPCR had prima facie, no jurisdiction – On appeal, held: Ifany official is asked for information by any of the Commissions, heis duty bound to reply to the letters of the Commissions – OneCommission may raise the issue that since it is seized of the matterand is inquiring into it, the National Commission should not startanother inquiry, but it is not for the officials to raise such an issueF– Whether an inquiry has actually been initiated or not cannot bedecided by an official – This has to be decided either by theCommission or by a Court of law – Therefore, ADGP should havefurnished the information to the NCPCR rather than challengingthe jurisdiction of the NCPCR.G

Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 –s.13(2) – Whether s.13(2) of the CPCR Act places the twoCommissions (the NCPCR and the State Commission) in water-tightcompartments where they oust the jurisdiction of each other – Held:There is no question of ouster of jurisdiction of any Commission –

H

The only constraint placed by s.13(2) is that if the State Commissionhas already started an inquiry, the National Commission shouldnaturally refrain from inquiring into the matter – This, however,does not mean that the National Commission cannot go into theother larger questions which may have led to the specific incidentsof violation of child rights which need to be inquired into – Insofar,the inter-State or international ramifications e.g. a child is beingillegally sent for adoption abroad – Here again, if the StateCommission in such a case asks for assistance from the NationalCommission or some other State Commission where the child mayhave been illegally trafficked, the National Commission or the otherState Commission(s) should cooperate with the Commission inquiringinto the matter – Both the Commissions have to work for the bestinterest of the children in a spirit of cooperation.

Partly disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The following three questions arise for decisionin this case:

(i) Whether the matter in hand was pending before theWest Bengal Commission for Protection of ChildRights before the NCPCR took cognizance on03.03.2017 and started inquiry on 07.03.2017?

(ii) Whether Section 13 (2) of the CPCR Act places thetwo Commissions (the NCPCR and the StateCommissions) in water-tight compartments where theyoust the jurisdiction of each other?

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

2. As far as the aforementioned questions framed areconcerned, this Court answers the Question No.1 by holding thatin the facts of the present case, the WBCPCR had not started aninquiry 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 ofjurisdiction of any Commission. The only constraint placed bySection 13(2) is that if the State Commission has already startedan inquiry, the National Commission should naturally refrain from A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ainquiring into the matter. This, however, does not mean that theNational Commission cannot go into the other larger questionswhich may have led to the specific incidents of violation of childrights which need to be inquired into. With regard to QuestionNo.3 this Court holds that even a State Commission has the powerto inquire into those matters which fall within its purview andBeven if the illegality is such that it has inter-State or internationalramifications, e.g. a child is being illegally sent for adoptionabroad. Here again, this Court is of the view that if the StateCommission in such a case asks for assistance from the NationalCommission or some other State Commission where the childCmay have been illegally trafficked, the National Commission orthe other State Commission(s) should cooperate with theCommission inquiring into the matter. [Para 36][1000-D-F]

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

4. Police officials should realise that when the CommissionsEconstituted under the CPCR Act ask for some relevantinformation, they must respectfully reply to the same and notrake up the dispute of so-called ‘jurisdiction’. Even the policeofficials must realise that these Commissions have beenconstituted for the welfare of the children. Even assuming thatthe WBCPCR had started an inquiry, there is no reason whyFADGP, CID could not have provided the information to theNCPCR. It was not for him to question the jurisdiction of theNCPCR. If any official is asked for information by any of theCommissions, he is duty bound to reply to the letters of theCommission. One Commission may raise the issue that since itGis seized of the matter and is inquiring into it, the NationalCommission should not start another inquiry, but it is not for theofficials to raise such an issue. Whether an inquiry has actuallybeen initiated or not cannot be decided by an official. This has tobe decided either by the Commission or by a Court of law.

H

Therefore, in view of this Court, ADGP, CID would have beenbetter advised to furnish information to the NCPCR rather thanchallenging the jurisdiction of the NCPCR. [Para 33][999-C-E]

5. In view of the above, this Court is clearly of the viewthat ADGP, CID should have furnished the information whichappears to now have been furnished by the State authorities. Ifsuch information has not been furnished, the present incumbentholding the post of ADGP, CID, West Bengal is directed to furnishthe information to the National Commission as well as to JuvenileJustice Committee of the High Court of Calcutta within 15 daysfrom the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Thecounsel for the State of West Bengal shall inform the presentAdditional Director General of Police, Criminal InvestigationDepartment, West Bengal of these directions.[Para 38][1001-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7968of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2017 of the High Courtat Calcutta in W.P. No. 22537(W) of 2017.

A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG, Ms. Indira Jaisingh, Sr. Adv., Ms. AninditaPujari, Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Ms. Pallavi Chouhan, Om Narayan, Ms. SwatiGhildiyal, Mrs. Neela Kedar Gokhale, S.S. Rebello, Ms. Suhasini Sen,Ms. Shivikka Aggarwal, Raghav Sharma, Ms. Arzu Paul, N. Pavana,Ms. Riya Soni, Ilam Paridi, Ms. Shruti Dixit, G.S. Makker, Manoj V.George, Ms. Shilpa Liza George, Aakarsh Kamra, D. Rama KrishnaReddy, Ms. Poonam Kaushik, Ms. Gagan Deep Kaur, Mrs. D. BharathiReddy, Suhaan Mukerji, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. Kajal Dalal, AmitVerma, Abhishek Manchanda, Prastut Dalvi, Naveen Kumar, KunalChatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Saurav Gupta, Siddhesh Kotwal,Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Divyansh Tiwari, ShourajeetChakravarty, Supratik Sarkar, Siddiqua Parveen, M/S. PLR ChambersAnd Co., Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Arun R. Pedneker, HiteshKr. Sharma, Ms. Mukti Chowdhary, Ms. Diksha Rai, Ms. Palak Mahajan,Anil Shrivastav, Rituraj Biswas, Satyendra Kumar Srivastav, Dr. RajeshPandey, Ms. Tanuja Manjari Patra, Ms. Shweta Mulchandani, ManojSelvaraj S., Mahesh Pandey, Ms. Aswathi M.K., Vishal Prasad, V. N.Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Satish Kapoor, AB

C

D

EF

G

H

AMs. Gitanjali Tripathy, Ms. Ritu Rastogi, Ms. Sangeeta Joshi, Ms. SasmitaTripathy, Vikas Mahajan, Vinod Sharma, Anil Kumar, Aakash Varma,M. Shoeb Alam, Leishangthem Roshmani Kh, Ms. Anupama Ngangom,Ms. Maibam Babina, Aribam Jankinath Sharma, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Amit Kumar Singh, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Sunny Choudhary,Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Ankit Agarwal, Amartya Singh, NarendraBKumar, Raghvendra Kumar, M. Yogesh Kanna, Rajarajeshwaran S.,Shibashish Misra, S. Debabrata Reddy, Chandan Kumar Mandal,Ms. Garima Prashad, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma,R.R. Rajesh, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Ms. DeepanwitaPriyanka, Vinay Arora, Ms. G. Indira, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. HemantikaCWahi, Gopal Prasad, Ms. Shalja Agarwal, Udit Bansal, Jayesh Gaurav,Ranjan Mukherjee, Deniel Stone Lyngdoh, Upendra Mishra, K.V.Kharlyndoh, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. AnuradhaArputham, Amit Arora, M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, K. V.Vijayakumar, S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Gopal Singh,Subhasish Mohanty, Shuvodeep Roy, Sumeer Sodhi, Piyush Dwivedi,DMs. Jaspreet Gogia, V. G. Pragasam, R. P. Gupta, Prem Sunder Jha,Milind Kumar, Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Bihu S. Mukerji, Samarth Khanna,G.N. Reddy, Mrs. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Mrs. Sujatha Bagadhi,Mahfooz Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Arvind Anand, Avijit Mani Tripathi,Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Shaurya Sahay, G. Prakash, Jishnu M.L.,EMrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Nishant R. Katneshwarkar,Anoop Kandari, Advs. for the appearing parties.

Intervenor-in-person,

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FDEEPAK GUPTA, J.

1. It’s so sad! We start with a lament because institutions set upto protect children have virtually forsaken them in a fight over their socalled jurisdictions.

2. India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on theGRights of the Child, 1989 which makes it obligatory upon the signatoryStates to take all necessary steps to protect the rights of the children asset out in the Convention. The Government of India enacted the JuvenileJustice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. This was repealedby the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015(hereinafter referred to as ‘the JJ Act’).H

3. It was felt expedient to enact a law constituting specialcommissions to protect the rights of children. Parliament enacted theCommissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (hereinafterreferred to as ‘the CPCR Act’). The CPCR Act envisages the constitutionof a National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (hereinafterreferred to as ‘NCPCR/National Commission’) under Section 3 and theState Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (hereinafter referredto as ‘State Commissions’) under Section 17. We shall deal with theirrespective functions and powers at a later stage but there can be nomanner of doubt that these two Commissions – one at the National leveland the other at the State level – are expected to function in a spirit ofcooperation. We expect such Commissions to consult, discuss andcooperate with each other while exercising their powers and fulfillingthe duties enjoined upon them by the CPCR Act. These two institutionsare in the nature of siblings. The goal which they both set out to achieveis the same, viz., protecting children from all sorts of abuse, exploitationetc. We see no reason why there should be any disharmony and lack ofcoordination between these two institutions. This non-cooperation andlack of coordination can only occur when the persons manning theinstitutions put their own interests over the interest of the children. It isonly when those in-charge of such commissions give themselves so muchimportance that they forget that they are the creation of statute, the onlypurpose of which is to protect children.

4. This case is a classic example where in the fight between theState Commission and the National Commission the children have been,all but forgotten. We are sorry that this Court has to spend its timeresolving such disputes. This Court as well as the two major partieslitigating before us definitely have better things to do.

5. From the material on record, it appears that news reports werepublished some time in February, 2017 indicating that a child-careinstitution based in Jalpaiguri in West Bengal had indulged in large scaletrafficking of children. The NCPCR took cognizance of these reportson 03.03.2017 and two members of the NCPCR went to Jalpaiguri on07.03.2017. They requested the State officials to provide them someinformation which, according to the NCPCR, was not provided. Theyfinally summoned the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP),Criminal Investigation Department (CID), West Bengal(Respondent no.1herein) to appear before the NCPCR. This gentleman, instead of AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Aappearing before the NCPCR, chose to file a writ petition challengingthe jurisdiction of the NCPCR to summon him. The High Court, by theimpugned order dated 29.08.2017, stayed the direction of the NCPCRmainly on the ground that since the State Commission had takencognizance of the matter on 24.02.2017, the NCPCR had prima facie nojurisdiction.B

6. Section 13 of the CPCR Act deals with the functionsand powersof the National Commission. Section 24 of the CPCR Act vests thesame functions and powers in the State Commissions. Section 13 of theCPCR Act therefore defines the functions and powers of both the NCPCRand the State Commissions. It reads as follows :-C

“13. Functions of Commission.-(1) The Commission shallperform all or any of the following functions, namely:- (a) examine and review the safeguards provided by or under anylaw for the time being in force for the protection of child rightsand recommend measures for their effective implementation; D

(b) present to the Central Government, annually and at such otherintervals, as the Commission may deem fit, reports upon theworking of those safeguards;

(c) inquire into violation of child rights and recommend initiationEof proceedings in such cases; (d) examine all factors that inhibit the enjoyment of rights of childrenaffected by terrorism, communal violence, riots, natural disaster,domestic violence, HIV/AIDS, trafficking, maltreatment, tortureand exploitation, pornography and prostitution and recommendappropriate remedial measures; F

(e) look into the matters relating to children in need of specialcare and protection including children in distress, marginalized anddisadvantaged children, children in conflict with law, juveniles,children without family and children of prisoners and recommendappropriate remedial measures; G

(f) study treaties and other international instruments and undertakeperiodical review of existing policies, programmes and otheractivities on child rights and make recommendations for theireffective implementation in the best interest of children; H

(g) undertake and promote research in the field of child rights; (h) spread child rights literacy among various sections of the societyand promote awareness of the safeguards available for protectionof these rights through publications, the media, seminars and otheravailable 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 StateGovernment or any other authority, including any institution runby a social organisation; where children are detained or lodgedfor the purpose of treatment, reformation or protection and takeup with these authorities for remedial action, if found necessary; (j) inquire into complaints and take suo motu notice of mattersrelating to,-

(i) deprivation and violation of child rights;

(ii) non-implementation of laws providing for protectionand development of children;

(iii) non-compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating hardships to andensuring welfare of the children and to provide reliefto such children, or take up the issues arising out of such matters with appropriateauthorities; and (k) such other functions as it may consider necessary for thepromotion of child rights and any other matter incidental to theabove functions.

(2) The Commission shall not inquire into any matter which ispending before a State Commission or any other Commission dulyconstituted under any law for the time being in force.”

7. A perusal of Section 13 makes it amply clear that the NationalCommission and the State Commissions have been clothed with identicalpowers and functions. The Commissions have been constituted with aview to not only protect the rights of children but also to suggest waysand means of enhancing the rights of children and ensuring that lawsmade for the protection of children are effectively implemented. These A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acommissions exercise extremely important powers. They must functiononly for the protection and betterment of children. These commissionscannot become sources of power, self-aggrandisement or means ofobtaining the trappings of power like official cars, bungalows etc. Thepeople who are appointed to such commissions must in a true sense befriends of the children, willing to spend their time and energy to helpBchildren rather than pushing their own personal or political interest.

8. Amongst many others, the main functions and powers which acommission is required to perform are examining and reviewing the legalprovisions enacted for protection of children so that they are effectivelyimplemented; inquire into cases of violation of rights of children andCrecommend the initiation of proceedings in such cases; examining thefactors which inhibit the enjoyment of rights by children in circumstancesmentioned in Section 13(d) and recommend remedial measures; takinga deeper look into matters relating to children in need of care andprotection, children in distress, children belonging to marginalised andDdisadvantaged sections, children in conflict of law, children without familyor children of prisoners; to study various international instruments, treatiesand policies, undertake research in the field of child rights, spreadawareness about child rights; increase child literacy etc. Section 13(1)(i)empowers the commission to itself inspect or cause to be inspected anyjuvenile custodial home or any other place of residence or institutionmeantEfor children whether such institution is run by the State Government orthe Central Government or any other authority and includes institutionsrun by social organisations which, in our opinion, would include NGOsalso. The Commissions can take up all other necessary functions andare required to present to the Central Government/State Government,Fas the case may be, reports in these regards.

9. In the present case, we are mainly concerned with the functionsof the Commission referred to in clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section13 of the CPCR Act, which empowers the commissions to inquire intocomplaints or even take suo motu notice of matters relating to deprivationGand violation of child rights, non-implementation of laws providing forprotection and development of children, non-compliance of policies andguidelines framed for the purpose of ameliorating and protecting theconditions of children etc. There can be no manner of doubt that givingchildren in adoption without following the prescribed procedure orguidelines would definitely be a matter which could be inquired into bothHby the NCPCR or the State Commission.

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILDRIGHTS v. DR. RAJESH KUMAR [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

10. We are, in this case, mainly concerned with Section 13(2) ofthe CPCR Act, which states that the National Commission shall notinquire into any matter which is pending before a State Commission orany other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time beingin force.

A

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

B

(i) Whether the matter in hand was pending before the WestBengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights before theNCPCR took cognizance on 03.03.2017 and started inquiryon 07.03.2017?

C

(ii) Whether Section 13 (2) of the CPCR Act places the twoCommissions (the NCPCR and the State Commissions) inwater-tight compartments where they oust the jurisdiction ofeach other?

(iii) Whether in a case which has inter-State or internationalramifications the jurisdiction, if any, of the NCPCR can beDousted?

12. We may clarify that we have used the term ‘jurisdiction’because it has been used by the parties. However, the proper wordshould not be ‘jurisdiction’ but the ‘functions and powers’ to be exercisedby the respective Commissions. In our view if we do not refer to the‘jurisdictions’ and deal with the ‘functions and powers’ of the Commissionsthen matters become much simpler. There is no ouster of jurisdictionlike in the case of courts. The purpose of Section 13(2) is to ensure thatone Commission carries out the inquiry. The language of the CPCR Actis clear that if the State Commission or any other Commission constitutedunder law has started an inquiry under Section 14 then the NationalCommission should stay its hands in the matter. Both the Commissionshave similar powers and functions. The jurisdiction of the StateCommissions is limited to the State for which such Commission isconstituted whereas the National Commission has jurisdiction all overthe country and can inquire into any matter in any State. We have nodoubt in our mind that both the Commissions are expected to function ina spirit of comity and in concert with each other and not as adversaries.The main issue which arises in this case is whether the West BengalCommission for Protection of Child Rights (WBCPCR) had actuallystarted the inquiry into the matter before the NCPCR started its inquiry.

E

F

G

H

A13. Section 13(1)(c) empowers the State Commissions to inquireinto the violation of child rights. In Advanced Law Lexicon[1] the word‘inquire’ has been defined as follows:

“Inquire. To seek knowledge by putting a question; to ask; tomake investigation or inquisition.”B

In the context in which the word ‘inquire’ occurs in Section13(1)(j), it obviously means something more than just making a requestfor information. It envisages the Commission playing an active role inascertaining the facts relating to the three circumstances dealt with inthis provision. It is more than just sending a letter. It is more akin to aCpreliminary inquiry and if such inquiry indicates that the rights of thechildren have been violated or the laws have not been implemented orthe policy decisions or guidelines have been violated then the Commissionmust also suggest remedial measures. This power to inquire under Section13(1)(j) will also have to be read with the power under Section 13(1)(c)which includes the power to inquire into the violation of child rights andDrecommend initiation of proceedings in such cases. Reading these twoclauses together it is obvious to us that ‘inquire’ is not making note onthe file but something more. We are dealing with children who cannotcomplain. The Commissions are meant to protect children who have novoice. It is these Commissions who have to give voice and feelings toEthe distress calls of children. The Commission can, thereafter, take actionby itself if permitted under law or can recommend initiation of proceedingsin accordance with law.

14. It would be apposite to refer to Sections 14 and 15 of theCPCR Act which apply both to the National Commission and the StateCommissions. The same read as follows:-F

“14. Powers relating to inquiries.- (1). The Commission shall,while inquiring into any matter referred to in clause (j) of sub-section (1) of section 13 have all the powers of a civil court tryinga suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and, inGparticular, in respect of the following matters, namely:-(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person andexamining him on oath; (b) discovery and production of any document;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

A

(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any courtor office; and (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses ordocuments.

B

(2) The Commission shall have the power to forward any case toa Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same and the Magistrateto whom any such case is forwarded shall proceed to hear thecomplaint against the accused as if the case has been forwardedto him under section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974).”

C

“15. Steps after inquiry.-The Commission may take any of thefollowing steps upon the completion of an inquiry held under thisAct, namely:-

(i) where the inquiry discloses, the Commission of violation ofchild rights of a serious nature or contravention of provisionsDof any law for the time being in force, it may recommend tothe concerned Government or authority the initiation ofproceedings for prosecution or such other action as theCommission may deem fit against the concerned person orpersons; E

(ii) approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concernedfor such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deemnecessary;

(iii) recommend to the concerned Government or authority forthegrant of such interim relief to the victim or the membersof his family as the Commission may consider necessary.”

F

15. Any Commission, while conducting an inquiry under Section13(1)(j) has been given wide powers akin to that of a civil court and hasa right to forward any case to a magistrate and the magistrate is requiredto deal with such case forwarded to him as if the case has beenforwarded to him under Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. The follow up action which a Commission can take is also clearlyset out in Section 15 of the CPCR Act which empowers the Commissionto make recommendations to the concerned Government or authorityfor initiation of proceedings including prosecution or such other action asthe Commission may deem fit. This is a recommendatory power but G

H

Anormally we would expect that the Government would accept therecommendation of the Commission in this regard. The second powergiven to the Commission is to approach the Supreme Court or the HighCourt for an appropriate writ, order or direction. The Commission canalso recommend the grant of interim relief to a victim under Section15(iii) of the CPCR Act. The aforesaid provisions which set out theBpowers relating to inquiries and steps to be taken thereafter clearly indicatethat the inquiry contemplated is more than only gathering of information,and is more in the nature of an investigation or inquisition.

16. In the present case, the dispute is who started inquiry first –whether it was the WBCPCR or the National Commission. As far asCthe National Commission is concerned, there is no dispute that it startedits inquiry on 07.03.2017 when its members visited Jalpaiguri to inquireinto the matter. The stand of the National Commission is that they were,for the first time, informed on 24.07.2017that the State Commission hastaken cognizance and is inquiring into the matter even though they hadDwritten various letters to the various officials including the DistrictMagistrate and the police officials in this regard. From the list of datesfiled by the WBCPCR, it appears that on12.07.2016 the Director, ChildRights and Trafficking, West Bengal (for short ‘the Director, CRT’)wrote to the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri seeking a report on the illegalchild trafficking there. An inquiry team was formed by the DistrictEMagistrate, Jalpaiguri on 09.12.2016 and a report was sent to the Director,CRT on 11.01.2017. Thereafter, the Director, CRT passed an order thatthe Specialised Adoption Agency(for short ‘the SAA’), Jalpaiguri is notfunctioning as per the provisions of Adoption Guidelines, 2015 and the JJAct and 15 children from the SAA Jalpaiguri, run by the North BengalFPeoples’ Development Centre (for short ‘the NBPDC’) were transferredto other institutions. On 17.01.2017, the Central Adoption ResourceAuthority (for short ‘the CARA’) filed a complaint with the CID, WestBengal. On 22.01.2017, a report appeared in local newspaper about thischild trafficking racket. On 15.02.2017, a team was constituted by theCID, West Bengal to investigate the complaint made by the CARA. OnG16.02.2017, a team of CID, West Bengal went to Jalpaiguri. On 17.02.2017,a letter was allegedly sent by the Chairperson of the WBCPCR to theDistrict Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, informing that the State Commission hadtaken cognizance of the report published in the daily newspaper on22.01.2017. On 19.02.2017, a formal First Information Report (FIR)Hwas registered in the matter. The report dated 11.01.2017, referred to above, was sent to the WBCPCR on 24.02.2017. Thereafter, news itemsagain appeared on 26.02.2017 and two women officials of the concernedadoption centre were arrested. Admittedly, NCPCR took note of thisinstance on 03.03.2017 and on 07.03.2017 two members of the NCPCRvisited Jalpaiguri to conduct an inquiry.

17. We had requested learned counsel appearing for the WBCPCRto provide the file of WBCPCR in relation to this matter, which wasprovided. After going through the file, all that we can say isthat the file isnot maintained like an official file. The papers were kept casually. Exceptfor the noting sheet, the other papers were not tagged. The other paperswere also not paginated. In such a file, there can be additions andalterations at any stage. We, therefore, cannot place too much relianceon such a poorly maintained file and direct the WBCPCR to ensure thatin future, files, especially of complaints,are maintained in a proper manner.According to the documents which form a part of this file, the WBCPCRtook suo motu cognizance of the incident on 30.01.2017 on the basis ofthe newspapersreport dated 22.01.2017. It was stated in the noting sheetthat the matter be put up for appropriate action. Though this note isdated 30.01.2017and was put up to the Chairperson,WBCPCR, it appearsthat the Chairperson wrote that she should be reminded after 10 daysfor follow up action. The file was again put up before the Chairpersonon 13.02.2017.On 14.02.2017 it was ordered that the District Magistrate/District Children Protection Officer (DCPO) may be asked to submit areport. A draft letter was put up which was approved on 16.02.2017 anddispatched on 17.02.2017. The DCPO, Jalpaiguri sent the report throughmail dated 24.02.2017. The matter was again placed before theChairperson, who directed that the report be kept for records. The nextnoting on the file is of 15.03.2017. This note of 15.03.2017 has been putup with regard to the visit of the Chairperson and Secretary to Jalpaigurion 10.03.2017 and 11.03.2017 to assist and monitor the situation afterthe recent cases of child trafficking. Though, the visit is dated 10.03.2017and 11.03.2017, the note is put up on 15.03.2017 and approved on thesame date. We are unable to understand why the note for the visit wasnot put up prior to the visit. We have perused the report prepared by theChairperson of the WBCPCR and find that the report is more in thenature of allegations against the members of the NCPCR. The reportvirtually does not deal with the issue related to trafficking of the children.We shall deal with this report at a later stage.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A18. Even if we accept the record of the WBCPCR to be thegospel truth then also other than using the word ‘takes suo-motocognizance’ on 30.01.2017, the WBCPCR had taken no steps to inquireinto the matter, which is the mandate of Section 13(1)(j) of the CPCRAct, till the visit of its Chairperson on 10.03.2017 and 11.03.2017. Wemake it clear that in every case a personal visit is not required but theBmanner in which this case has been dealt with leaves much to be desired.We see no reason why, if cognizance was taken on 30.01.2017, it wasdirected that the matter be placed for reminding the Chairperson to takefollow up action after 10 days. These sort of matters brook no delay.Even after the matter was put up, no attempts were made to hold anCinquiry. All that was done was to order the District Magistrate/DCPO tosubmit a report. That report was filed on 24.02.2017 and it was orderedthat the report be kept on record. It appears that it is only after the visitof the members of the NCPCR that the WBCPCR actually felt itnecessary to itself visit Jalpaiguri and take stock of the situation.

D19. As pointed above, as far as NCPCR is concerned, on03.03.2017 a communication was sent by the NCPCR to the DistrictMagistrate, Jalpaiguri wherein he was asked to give specific informationwith regard to the home in question. Thereafter, on 07.03.2017 twomembers of the NCPCR visited Jalpaiguri and even if the inquiry did notstart on 03.03.2017, it definitely started on 07.03.2017. It found variousEdeficiencies especially with regard to non-constitution of Child WelfareCommittee (CWC) in New Jalpaiguri District from 23.08.2013-28.08.2015. It also found that ad hoc CWC was functioning which isagainst the provisions of law. Therefore, the NCPCR sent a letter on16.03.2017 to the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri seeking status ofFregistration of homes, status of CWCs etc. On 23.03.2017, the NCPCRsent another letter to the District Magistrate specifically asking whetherthe WBCPCR had commenced an inquiry into the matter before thevisit of the members of the NCPCR or after the initiation of the inquiryby the NCPCR. To this, no reply was given by the District Magistrate.

Then, the NCPCR summoned the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri onG12.04.2017 for personal appearance on 25.04.2017. The DistrictMagistrate did not appear but sent some information vide communicationdated 21.04.2017. However, in this communication also there is no replyto the specific query as to whether the WBCPCR had initiated an inquiryinto the matter. The NCPCR also took no steps for almost two months.HOn 20.06.2017 the NCPCR sought the following information from theADGP, CID, West Bengal (respondent no.1):- “1.In this case, sale of as many as about 17 children has beenAmentioned in this case, in which children were sold both inthe country and abroad. Since this organization has come inexistence, how many children have been adopted throughthis organization, provide list of those to the Commission.

2. In this case, children were given to Non-Resident Indian andforeign couples both, hence this case seems to be case ofinternational trafficking. Record concerning as to how manychildren have been given to Non-resident and foreign coupesbe made available to the Commission.

B

3. According to newspaper, forged papers and papers ofNational Adoption Authority have been used in this crime inforged manner. Copies of papers seized by CID, statement& list/copies of evidence be made available to theCommission.

C

4. List of all the detained/arrested people in this case, copy ofFirst Information Report, copies of all the investigation reportsDbe provided to the Commission. Copy of the statement ofdetained people.

5. From the year 2013 to 2015 Child Welfare Committee hadnot been constituted in District Jalpaiguri, in place thereof,Ad hoc Committee had been working. The following-mentioned papers/documents relating to this Committee bemade available to the Commission:- E

i.Copy of order for constituting ad hoc committee.

ii. People included in the ad hoc committee, list of thosewith their names, posts/designations be made availableto the Commission.

F

iii. Minutes of the meetings convened by ad hoc Committeeduring its tenure.

iv. Decisions about how many children were taken by Adhoc Committee, copies of all the case files concerningwith all those.

G

If any charge sheet has been filed in court, then copythereof.”

20. On the same day i.e. 20.06.2017, the District Magistrate,Jalpaiguri, was also directed by the NCPCR to give information pertainingto the constitution of ad hoc committee and members of the ad hoc H

Acommittee. That very day another communication was sent by theNCPCR to the Department of Women &Child Development, WestBengal, to initiate an inquiry into the matterand inform the NCPCR aboutthe report of the Government. According to the NCPCR, no responsewas received from any of the authorities. Thereafter, another reminderwas sent on 13.07.2017. Left with no option, on 20.07.2017, summonsBwere issued to the ADGP, CID, West Bengal to appear before theNCPCR in person on 25.07.2017 along with relevant documents. Acommunication was also sent to the Chief Secretary, West Bengal on22.07.2017 asking for information. The ADGP, CID, West Bengal byletter/fax on 24.07.2017 informed the NCPCR that since WBCPCRChas already proceeded with the matter, the NCPCR should stay its handin the present matter. Meanwhile on 21.07.2017, a report was sent bythe CID, West Bengal supplying some information but most of theinformation was not sent. Thereafter, the NCPCR issued summons tothe ADGP, CID, West Bengal on 14.08.2017 to appear before theNCPCR on 29.08.2017. The ADGP, CID, West Bengal challenged theseDsummons by filing a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court. The AdvocateGeneral of the State appeared for Dr. Rajesh Kumar, ADGP, CID, WestBengal. The High Court vide impugned order, prima facie, came to theconclusion that since the WBCPCR had taken cognizance of the matteron 24.02.2017, the NCPCR is denuded of its jurisdiction over the subject.The High Court, accordingly, stayed the summons.E

21. We are constrained to observe that in this clash of egos betweenthe State Commission (WBCPCR) and the National Commission(NCPCR), for this entire period, other than the police taking action,nothing was done on the administrative side to set matters right.

F22. The police have acted, a case has been filed, accused havebeen arrested and we are told that most of the children have been reunitedwith their parents. We are purposely not commenting on the criminalaspects of the matter. We refrain from doing so because any commentfrom us may affect the trial of the accused who are entitled to a fair andfree trial. In fact, since criminal proceedings in respect to the illegalGadoptions had already started, no inquiry could actually be conducted byeither of the two Commissions with respect to the same. However, theNational Commission was definitely entitled to inquire as to why properCWCs had not been constituted and under what orders were ad hocCWCs functioning. The Commissions can also inquire into the factualaspects which led to the trafficking of the children, though not the actualH

crime itself. In fact, we are of the view that such inquiries are necessaryso that such events do not occur in the future. In case, the CWCs hadbeen properly constituted may be this unfortunate situation would nothave arisen.

23. Though we are of the view that an inquiry into the allegedillegal adoption could not be conducted because a criminal case hadalready been registered, at the same time, we cannot shut our eyes tothe manner in which both the State Commission (WBCPCR), the NationalCommission (NCPCR) and the senior officials of the State CID havedealt with the matter. We have already commented on the lack of alacrityon the part of the WBCPCR which purportedly took cognizance of thematter on 30.01.2017 but no effective steps were taken to inquire intothe matter till 10.03.2017 except calling for a report. The members ofthe NCPCR visited Jalpaiguri on 07.03.2017 and have recorded thestatement of CWC members. According to the statements so recorded,one of the accused, who was Secretary of the NBPDC which wasrunning the concerned SAA,prayed for certificates for 20 children to bedeclared legally fit for adoption whom they placed before ProspectiveAdoptive Parents (PAPs)without Legally Fit for Adoption (LFA)Certificatesfrom CWC, Jalpaiguri. According to the statements, themembers of the CWC were shocked that the legal procedure had notbeen followed. According to these members, they complained to thevarious officials but they were compelled to give certificates that thechildren were legally fit for adoption. In the absence of the parties whohave made the statements, we would not like to make any further commentexcept to state that if any member of a CWC can be compelled orpressurized to give such a certificate then that member has no businessof ever being appointed as member of CWC or in any capacity in a childrights institution.

24. We, however, find that in the report of the Chairperson,WBCPCR she herself mentioned that they had visited the home andinspected the premises but nothing more is written as to the manner inwhich the children were trafficked. Rest of the report deals with allegedmisconduct of the members of the NCPCR when they visited the homeat Korak. It is alleged that the Superintendent of the Home complainedthat the NCPCR team had brought entire media including the televisionmedia inside the centre and despite protest of the Superintendent, themedia was brought inside the home. Again, the Chairperson mentions A

BC

D

EF

G

H

Athat the District Magistrate also complained that the team of the NCPCRhad brought media everywhere and had insulted everyone. However,we did not find anything of this sort mentioned in the communicationsent by the District Magistrate. Be that as it may, we find that the reportof the Chairperson WBCPCR does not deal at all with the issue of childtrafficking.B

25. We would like to make it clear that when arguments weretaking place the report of the Chairperson, WBCPCR was not broughtto our knowledge and we only saw it in the file. Therefore, we cannotrely on the report of the Chairperson, WBCPCR especially since wehave not given the NCPCR a right to rebut what is stated in this report.CHowever, even if all aspects are not correct but only one aspect oftaking the media inside the home is correct, we have to express ourdispleasure with the same. We would like to make it clear that noperson(s), including members of the Commissions whether it be theNational Commission or the State Commission,are permitted to takeDmedia with them when they visit any of the homes set up under the JJAct or under any other law. The privacy of the children is of the highestimportance. In this fight between two bodies, the children cannot bemadesubject matter of a media war. We sincerely hope that nothing likethis will happen in future.

E26. Coming to the role of the National Commission, we somehowfeel that the National Commission was also more interested in settlingscores with the State Commission or with the officials of the StateGovernment rather than ameliorating the plight of the children. On03.03.2017, the following information was asked by the NCPCR fromthe District Magistrate:-F

“1. Whether this Home was registered? Copy of the registrationof the organization, list of officers and employees of theorganization be provided to the Commission.

2. Whether this Home had been registered from CentralGAdoption Authority? Whatever papers relating to registrationin CARA are available, be made available to the Commission.

3. Whether this organization had been working as DistrictAdoption Authority? Papers relating to registration in theWomen & Child Development Department, West Bengal bemade available to the Commission.H

4. If this organization has been run under section 41 JuvenileJustice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 registeredSpecific Adoption Agency recognized by Central AdoptionResources Authority, State Adoption Resources Tribunal,concerning papers be made available to the Commission.

5. In this case, sale of as many as about 17 children has beenmentioned in this case, in which children were sold both in thecouintry8 and abroad. Since this organization has come inexistence, how many children have been adopted through thisorganization, provide list of those to the Commission.

6. In this case, children were given to Non-Resident Indian andforeign coupes both, hence this case seems to be case ofinternational trafficking. Record concerning as to how manychildren have been given to Non-resident and foreign couplesbe made available to the Commission.

7. According to newspaper, forged papers and papers of NationalAdoption Authority have been used in this crime in forgedmanner. Copies of papers seized by CID, statement & list/copies of evidence be made available to the Commission.

8. List of all the detained/arrested people in this case, copy ofFirst Information Report, copies of all the investigation reportsbe provided to the Commission.

9. How many children were sent by Child Welfare Committee(CWC) to the organization, how many times CWC visitedorganization during the past five years and whatever otherproceedings have been initiated relating to the organization,copies of those be made available to the Commission.

10. Reports of all the inspections conducted by the DistrictAdministration in the above-said organization in the past threeyears, and copy of report of inspections conducted at the timeof registration of organization be made available to theCommission.

11. Make available list of adoption organization or organizations/institutions concerning with welfare of children (CCI) whetherregistered/unregistered in Jalpaiguri be made available to theCommission.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A12. If any other organization/institutions have remained involvedin illegal acts and cases would have been registered againstthem, list of those be made available to the Commission.

13. Because limits of District Jalpaiguri are attached withinternational limits of Nepal and Bangladesh, therefore, list ofBcases of trafficking registered in the district and list ofcomplaints registered about missing children etc. from District.also be made available to the Commission.”

27. In our opinion, the District Magistrate should have given therequisite information to all the aforesaid questions except Question Nos.C7 and 8 because these related to copies of papers seized by the CID andlist of all detained people in the case. The Commissionsunder the CPCRAct have no jurisdiction to monitor criminal cases. Their jurisdiction doesnot extend to monitoring the law and order which is a State subject.

28. Thereafter, on 16.03.2017 the following information was alsoDasked for by the NCPCR from the District Magistrate:

“14. From the year 2013 to 2015 Child Welfare Committee hadnot been constituted in District Jalpaiguri, in place thereof, Ad hocCommittee had been working. The following-mentioned papers/documents relating to this Committee be made available to theCommission: -E

i.Copy of order for constituting ad hoc committee.

ii.People included in the ad hoc committee, list of those withtheir names, posts/designations be made available to theCommission.F

iii.Minutes of the meetings convened by ad hoc Committeeduring its tenure.

iv.Decisions about how many children were taken by Ad hocCommittee, copies of all the case files concerning with allthose.G

15. During the course of inquiry, it was given to understand thatoffice of the District Children Protection Office (DCPO) whichis available in the premises of the Collectorate itself, was sealedand case has been registered against few people. Particulars ofall those and the following-mentioned information relating to thoseHare desired:-

i.People who were appointed in DCPO Office in the past 10years.

ii. Order for all the appointments.

iii. List of all the people appointed.”

29. In our opinion, the aforesaid information could have also beenprovided by the District Magistrate but, for reasons best known to her,this information was not provided promptly. On 23.03.2017, the NCPCRsent a letter to the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri in which the DistrictMagistrate was specifically asked to answer the following query:-

1. Whether West Bengal State Commission for Protection ofRights of Children have commenced any inquiry in the above-said case as to your level before approaching of Commission orafter commencing inquiry by the National Commission forProtection of Rights of Children? If so, then please provide detailsthereof.

From the record it appears that no answer was sent by the DistrictMagistrate to this query. Therefore, the NCPCR was justified in furtherproceeding with the matter because it was neither informed by DistrictMagistrate or the WBCPCR that the WBCPCR had already startedinquiry into the matter. It was only after summons were issued to theDistrict Magistrate on 12.04.2017 that she sent some documents.However, with regard to a large number of documents, it was statedthat since the concerned DCPO has been arrested and the documentswere in her custody, the requisite papers were not traceable. With regardto some of the documents it was mentioned that the CID, West Bengalmay be contacted because those documents are with the police inconnection with the criminal case.

30. It was thereafter that a communication was sent on 20.06.2017to Dr. Rajesh Kumar (IPS), ADGP, CID, West Bengal by the NCPCR.This was the first letter sent to a police official. In this letter, certaininformation quoted hereinabove was called for. Dr. Rajesh Kumar,ADGP,CID, West Bengal did not provide the aforesaid information and thereafteron 13.07.2017 a reminder was sent to him. Similar reminder was sent tothe District Magistrate also. Thereafter, on 20.07.2017 summons wereissued to Dr. Rajesh Kumar. As mentioned earlier, Dr. Rajesh Kumarsent a letter/fax on 24.07.2017 mentioning that the WBCPCR had takencognizance of the matter and, therefore, the NCPCR is barred from A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ataking up the inquiry. Reply was sent on 24.07.2017 informing him that ifhe did not appear before the National Commission, action against himwill be taken under Section 166A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.Thereafter, Dr. Rajesh Kumar sent a detailed reply challenging theauthority of the National Commission to summon him and also takingexception to the language used in the letter. We fail to understand whyBthis police official took such a step. We may mention that he has notbeen served despite various attempts by this Court. It appears to us thathe does not want to appear before us on one pretext or the other. Weare constrained to observe that from a perusal of the documents onrecord it is apparent that he did not cooperate with the NationalCCommission. The answer given by the State CID to the NCPCRis thatthe documents are lying with the Court. We are sure that a senior IPSofficial of the level of Dr. Rajesh Kumar must be aware that copies ofall 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 aspectDof the case but dealt with formation of the ad hoc committees and theabsence of a properly constituted CWC could have been provided.

31. With regard to the letter dated 03.03.2017, we have alreadyindicated that all the information except that relating to question nos. 7and 8 should have been provided by the District Magistrate. In fact,Eeven with regard to question nos. 7 and 8, even if the copies of thepapers seized and copies of the statements recorded were not to beprovided, there was no problem in providing the list of the detained personsand copy of the FIR. As far as the second letter dated 16.03.2017 isconcerned, again we find no reason why the information could not be Fprovided. But since the District Magistrate had responded that some ofthe information was not available as it was handed over to the StateCID, we would have expected that the ADGP, CID, West Bengal shouldhave provided the necessary information to the NCPCR except thatwhich related only to the investigation of the criminal case. In our view,neither the National Commission nor the State Commission had jurisdictionGto investigate the criminal matter and they cannot ask for copies of thestatements recorded by the investigating authorities. That can only be amatter between the prosecution and the accused.

32. Having said so, we are clearly of the view that Dr. RajeshKumar was obviously not cooperating with the NCPCR for reasonsH

best known to him. In our view, the State Commission had not startedany inquiry into the illegal setting up of CWCs or the alleged ad hocCWC being constituted in violation of the laws. We see no reason whyDr. Rajesh Kumar has not responded to the letter of the NCPCR clearlyproviding the information indicated above. His reply that the documentshad been filed in court is obviously an evasive answer. We are constrainedto make observations against Dr. Rajesh Kumar even though he is notpresent before us because we have no doubt in our mind that he isevading accepting notices sent from this Court.

33. Police officials should realise that when the Commissionsconstituted under the CPCR Act ask for some relevant information, theymust respectfully reply to the same and not rake up the dispute of so-called‘jurisdiction’. Even the police officials must realise that theseCommissions have been constituted for the welfare of the children. Evenassuming that the WBCPCR hadstarted an inquiry, we see no reasonwhy Dr. Rajesh Kumar could not have provided the information to theNCPCR. 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 isduty bound to reply to the letters of the Commission. One Commissionmay raise the issue that since it is seized of the matter and is inquiringinto it, the National Commission should not start another inquiry, but it isnot for the officials to raise such an issue. Whether an inquiry has actuallybeen initiated or not cannot be decided by an official. This has to bedecided either by the Commission or by a Court of law. Therefore, inour view, Dr. Rajesh Kumar would have been better advised to furnishinformation to the NCPCR rather than challenging the jurisdiction of theNCPCR.

34. Having held so, we are clearly of the view that even thelanguage of the letters sent by the NCPCR to Dr. Rajesh Kumar wasunnecessarily harsh. We are not repeating the contents of the lettersbut, according to us, when a Commission asks for information, the lettershould be formulated like a request and not like an order. Even if there isnon-compliance of such request, the Commission should send anotherletter in stronger terms directing the official to provide the requisiteinformation. But there is no need to threaten officials with arrest. Thisshould only be done as a last resort.

35. We may also note that though the National Commission showeda lot of urgency till the matter went up to the Calcutta High Court, after AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe matter came to this Court, for almost 2 years virtually nothing wasdone and we were orally informed that due to lack of translation ofdocuments from Bengali to Hindi/English, the inquiry could not becompleted. We are of the view that if the NCPCR decides to inquireinto a matter then it must procure the services of a translator to get thedocuments translated from the regional languages. It cannot, on the oneBhand, take over the inquiry even if the State Commission has not startedthe inquiry and, on the other hand, rely upon the authorities of the Stateto provide the translation. We are sure that there are enough universitiesand colleges in Delhi where Bengali is taught and if the NationalCommission really wanted to complete the inquiry, the documents couldChave been got translated.

36. As far as the questions framed by us in Para 12 of this judgmentare concerned, we answer Question No.1 by holding that in the facts ofthe present case, the WBCPCR had not started an inquiry till 07.03.2017.As far as Question No. 2 is concerned, we are of the view that there isDno question of ouster of jurisdiction of any Commission. The onlyconstraint placed by Section 13(2) is that if the State Commission hasalready started an inquiry, the National Commission should naturallyrefrain from inquiring into the matter. This, however, does not mean thatthe National Commission cannot go into the other larger questions whichmay have led to the specific incidents of violation of child rights whichEneed to be inquired into. With regard to Question No.3 we hold that evena State Commission has the power to inquire into those matters whichfall 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 foradoption abroad. Here again, we are of the view that if the State

FCommission in such a case asks for assistance from the NationalCommission or some other State Commission where the child may havebeen illegally trafficked, the National Commission or the other StateCommission(s) should cooperate with the Commission inquiring into thematter.

G37. As clearly held by us above, both the Commissions have towork for the best interest ofthe children in a spirit of cooperation.Unfortunately, in this case, there has been no cooperation rathermudslinging at each other. We would like to reiterate and re-emphasisethat there are no jurisdictional issues involved.

H

38. In view of the above, we are clearly of the view that Dr.Rajesh Kumar should have furnished the information which appears tonow have been furnished by the State authorities. If such informationhas not been furnished, the present incumbent holding the post of ADGP,CID, West Bengal is directed to furnish the information to the NationalCommission as well as to Juvenile Justice Committee of the High Courtof Calcutta within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy ofthis judgment.The counsel for the State of West Bengal shall inform thepresent Additional Director General of Police, Criminal InvestigationDepartment, West Bengal of these directions.

39. As is evident from the facts narrated above, both the StateCommission (WBCPCR) and the National Commission have beenwoefully lax in the matter. Hence we direct that other than the issueswhich form part of the criminal case, all other matters relating to theissue in hand and larger issues of appointment of CWCs and heads ofCWCs, not only as far as this case is concerned, but also for the entireState of West Bengal, should be monitored by the High Court of Calcutta,preferably by a bench headed by the Chairperson of the Juvenile JusticeCommittee of the High Court of Calcutta in a public interest litigation.In furtherance of these directions, we direct the Registry of this Court tosend a copy of this judgment to the Registrar General of the CalcuttaHigh Court, who shall place the same before the Hon’ble Chief Justiceof the High Court for constitution of an appropriate Bench. We requestthe Bench so constituted to deal with the matter as per the urgencyinvolved and if required, to establish a fool proof mechanism so thatsuch occurrences do not take place in future.

40. This appeal is partly disposed of in the aforesaid terms in sofar as the disputes inter se the NCPCR and WBCPCR are concerned.We, however, make it clear that the issue of setting up of human rightscourts and appointment of special public prosecutors for such humanrights courts shall be dealt with in this appeal as well as in the WritPetition (C) No.819 of 2019. All pending application(s) related to thedispute between the NCPCR and the Dr. Rajesh Kumar, ADGP, CID,West Bengal (respondent no.1) & WBCPCR, shall stand(s) disposed ofaccordingly.

Appeal partly disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H