Summary
The Supreme Court resolved the child-rights commissions’ dispute by holding that the West Bengal Commission had not begun a substantive inquiry before the National Commission acted. Section 13(2) avoided duplicate inquiries rather than creating rival jurisdictional compartments; wider systemic questions and inter-State cooperation remained possible. Neither commission could investigate or monitor the criminal case itself. Child privacy, cooperation and prompt information-sharing were emphasised, and the Calcutta High Court was requested to monitor the non-criminal systemic issues. Separate human-rights-court issues remained pending.
Issues
- Whether the State Commission’s earlier correspondence barred the National Commission’s inquiry, and what limits and cooperative duties governed the commissions’ functions.
Provisions considered
- Section 13(2), Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005An actual prior State inquiry calls for National Commission restraint on the same matter; mere correspondence did not establish that priority here. (¶¶ 6, 10, 12, 13, 18, 36)
- Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(j), 14 and 15, Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005Inquiry requires active fact ascertainment and may lead to the specified recommendations or court proceedings, without assuming criminal-investigation or monitoring powers. (¶¶ 6, 13, 14, 15, 22, 27, 31)
Held
- Calling for a report and keeping it on file did not amount to the substantive inquiry contemplated by the Act. On this record the State Commission had not begun such an inquiry by 7 March 2017, when the National Commission’s inquiry was underway. (¶¶ 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 36)
- Section 13(2) prevents duplication of an existing inquiry, without excluding wider questions. State commissions may consider matters within their remit despite inter-State or international implications, and commissions must assist one another rather than act as adversaries. (¶¶ 12, 36, 37)
- The commissions could examine failures such as improperly constituted Child Welfare Committees and circumstances enabling trafficking, but could not investigate the actual criminal case or demand investigative witness statements. Relevant administrative information had to be supplied; officials could not themselves decide the claimed inquiry-priority dispute. (¶¶ 22, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
- Children’s privacy prohibited taking media into the homes during commission visits. This direction did not amount to accepting untested allegations in the State chairperson’s report, which the Court declined to rely on without rebuttal opportunity. (¶¶ 24, 25)
- Given both commissions’ failures, the High Court was requested to monitor the non-criminal issues and State-wide CWC appointments, with any missing information supplied promptly. The separate human-rights-courts and prosecutor issues remained for further consideration. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40)
Result
Appeal partly disposed of as to the commission dispute. Current ADGP directed to supply any outstanding information to NCPCR and the High Court Juvenile Justice Committee within fifteen days of certified-copy receipt. Calcutta High Court requested to constitute a Bench for non-criminal systemic monitoring. Related applications disposed of; human-rights-court and special-prosecutor issues retained.