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

976                       [2020]
               SUPREME COURT     1 S.C.R. 976
                              REPORTS                       [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A              NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION
                          OF 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 –
C     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
D
      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,
E     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
F
      – 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.
G           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 –
H
                                       976
  NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD                            977
           RIGHTS v. DR. RAJESH KUMAR

The only constraint placed by s.13(2) is that if the State Commission    A
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,
                                                                         B
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       C
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:                                                            D

      (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?
                                                                         E
      (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                   F
            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
                                                                         G
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
                                                                         H
978            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A     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 that even a State Commission has the power
      to inquire into those matters which fall within its purview and
B
      even if the illegality is such that it has inter-State or international
      ramifications, e.g. a child is being illegally sent for adoption
      abroad. Here again, this Court is of the view that if the State
      Commission in such a case asks for assistance from the National
      Commission or some other State Commission where the child
C     may have been illegally trafficked, the National Commission or
      the other State Commission(s) should cooperate with the
      Commission inquiring into the matter. [Para 36][1000-D-F]
           3. As clearly held, both the Commissions have to work for
      the best interest of the children in a spirit of cooperation.
D     Unfortunately, in this case, there has been no cooperation rather
      mudslinging at each other. This Court would like to reiterate and
      re-emphasise that there are no jurisdictional issues involved.
      [Para 37][1000-G-H]
             4. Police officials should realise that when the Commissions
E     constituted 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 realise that these Commissions have been
      constituted for the welfare of the children. Even assuming that
      the WBCPCR had started an inquiry, there is no reason why
F     ADGP, CID could not have provided the information to the
      NCPCR. 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 is duty bound to reply to the letters of the
      Commission. One Commission may raise the issue that since it
G     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.

H
   NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD                             979
            RIGHTS v. DR. RAJESH KUMAR

Therefore, in view of this Court, ADGP, CID would have been                A
better advised to furnish information to the NCPCR rather than
challenging the jurisdiction of the NCPCR. [Para 33][999-C-E]
      5. In view of the above, this Court is clearly of the view
that ADGP, CID should have furnished the information which
appears to now have been furnished by the State authorities. If            B
such information has not been furnished, the present incumbent
holding the post of ADGP, CID, West Bengal is directed to furnish
the information to the National Commission as well as to Juvenile
Justice Committee of the High Court of Calcutta within 15 days
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The
counsel for the State of West Bengal shall inform the present              C
Additional Director General of Police, Criminal Investigation
Department, West Bengal of these directions.[Para 38]
[1001-A-B]
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7968
of 2019.                                                                   D

      From the Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2017 of the High Court
at Calcutta in W.P. No. 22537(W) of 2017.
       A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG, Ms. Indira Jaisingh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Anindita
Pujari, Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Ms. Pallavi Chouhan, Om Narayan, Ms. Swati       E
Ghildiyal, 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 Krishna
Reddy, Ms. Poonam Kaushik, Ms. Gagan Deep Kaur, Mrs. D. Bharathi
Reddy, Suhaan Mukerji, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. Kajal Dalal, Amit             F
Verma, Abhishek Manchanda, Prastut Dalvi, Naveen Kumar, Kunal
Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Saurav Gupta, Siddhesh Kotwal,
Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Divyansh Tiwari, Shourajeet
Chakravarty, Supratik Sarkar, Siddiqua Parveen, M/S. PLR Chambers
And Co., Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Arun R. Pedneker, Hitesh         G
Kr. Sharma, Ms. Mukti Chowdhary, Ms. Diksha Rai, Ms. Palak Mahajan,
Anil Shrivastav, Rituraj Biswas, Satyendra Kumar Srivastav, Dr. Rajesh
Pandey, Ms. Tanuja Manjari Patra, Ms. Shweta Mulchandani, Manoj
Selvaraj S., Mahesh Pandey, Ms. Aswathi M.K., Vishal Prasad, V. N.
Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Satish Kapoor,
                                                                           H
980            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A     Ms. Gitanjali Tripathy, Ms. Ritu Rastogi, Ms. Sangeeta Joshi, Ms. Sasmita
      Tripathy, 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, Narendra
B
      Kumar, 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. Deepanwita
      Priyanka, Vinay Arora, Ms. G. Indira, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Hemantika
C     Wahi, 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. Anuradha
      Arputham, 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,
D
      Ms. 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.,
E     Mrs. 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

F           DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
             1. It’s so sad! We start with a lament because institutions set up
      to protect children have virtually forsaken them in a fight over their so
      called jurisdictions.
             2. India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the
G     Rights of the Child, 1989 which makes it obligatory upon the signatory
      States to take all necessary steps to protect the rights of the children as
      set out in the Convention. The Government of India enacted the Juvenile
      Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. This was repealed
      by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
      (hereinafter referred to as ‘the JJ Act’).
H
   NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD                                  981
    RIGHTS v. DR. RAJESH KUMAR [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

        3. It was felt expedient to enact a law constituting special            A
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
                                                                                B
State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (hereinafter referred
to as ‘State Commissions’) under Section 17. We shall deal with their
respective functions and powers at a later stage but there can be no
manner of doubt that these two Commissions – one at the National level
and the other at the State level – are expected to function in a spirit of
cooperation. We expect such Commissions to consult, discuss and                 C
cooperate with each other while exercising their powers and fulfilling
the duties enjoined upon them by the CPCR Act. These two institutions
are in the nature of siblings. 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
                                                                                D
coordination between these two institutions. This non-cooperation 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.                                        E
        4. This case is a classic example where in the fight between the
State Commission and the National Commission the children have been,
all but forgotten. We are sorry that this Court has to spend its time
resolving such disputes. This Court as well as the two major parties
litigating before us definitely have better things to do.                       F
       5. From the material on record, it appears that news reports were
published some time in February, 2017 indicating that a child-care
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                G
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
                                                                                H
982            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A     appearing before the NCPCR, chose to file a writ petition challenging
      the jurisdiction of the NCPCR to summon him. The High Court, by the
      impugned order dated 29.08.2017, 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.
B
            6. Section 13 of the CPCR Act deals with the functionsand powers
      of the National Commission. Section 24 of the CPCR Act vests the
      same functions and powers in the State Commissions. Section 13 of the
      CPCR Act therefore defines the functions and powers of both the NCPCR
      and the State Commissions. It reads as follows :-
C
            “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
D           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
E           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
F           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
G           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;
H
   NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD                                 983
    RIGHTS v. DR. RAJESH KUMAR [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

      (g) undertake and promote research in the field of child rights;         A
      (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,        B
      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         C
      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;
                                                                               D
            (ii) non-implementation of laws providing for protection
                 and development of children;
            (iii) non-compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or
                  instructions aimed at mitigating hardships to and
                  ensuring welfare of the children and to provide relief
                                                                               E
                  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         F
      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.”
      7. A perusal of Section 13 makes it amply clear that the National        G
Commission and the State Commissions have been clothed with identical
powers and functions. The Commissions have been constituted with a
view to not only protect the rights of children but also to suggest ways
and means of enhancing the rights of children and ensuring that laws
made for the protection of children are effectively implemented. These         H
984             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A     commissions exercise extremely important powers. 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
B
      children rather than pushing their own personal or political interest.
             8. Amongst many others, the main functions and powers which a
      commission is required to perform are examining and reviewing the legal
      provisions enacted for protection of children so that they are effectively
      implemented; inquire into cases of violation of rights of children and
C     recommend the initiation of proceedings in such cases; examining the
      factors which inhibit the enjoyment of rights by children in circumstances
      mentioned in Section 13(d) and recommend remedial measures; taking
      a deeper look into matters relating to children in need of care and
      protection, children in distress, children belonging to marginalised and
D     disadvantaged sections, children in conflict of law, children without family
      or children of prisoners; to study various international instruments, treaties
      and policies, undertake research in the field of child rights, spread
      awareness about child rights; increase child literacy etc. Section 13(1)(i)
      empowers the commission to itself inspect or cause to be inspected any
      juvenile custodial home or any other place of residence or institutionmeant
E     for children whether such institution is run by the State Government or
      the Central Government or any other authority and includes institutions
      run by social organisations which, in our opinion, would include NGOs
      also. The Commissions can take up all other necessary functions and
      are required to present to the Central Government/State Government,
F     as the case may be, reports in these regards.
             9. In the present case, we are mainly concerned with the functions
      of the Commission referred to in clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section
      13 of the CPCR Act, which empowers the commissions to inquire into
      complaints or even take suo motu notice of matters relating to deprivation
G     and violation of child rights, non-implementation of laws providing for
      protection and development of children, non-compliance of policies and
      guidelines framed for the purpose of ameliorating and protecting the
      conditions of children etc. There can be no manner of doubt that giving
      children in adoption without following the prescribed procedure or
      guidelines would definitely be a matter which could be inquired into both
H     by the NCPCR or the State Commission.
   NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD                                985
    RIGHTS v. DR. RAJESH KUMAR [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

       10. We are, in this case, mainly concerned with Section 13(2) of       A
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.
      11. The following three questions arise for decision in this case:      B
      (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              C
           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       D
            ousted?
       12. We may clarify that we have used the term ‘jurisdiction’
because it has been used by the parties. However, the proper word
should not be ‘jurisdiction’ but the ‘functions and powers’ to be exercised
by the respective Commissions. In our view if we do not refer to the          E
‘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. The purpose of Section 13(2) is to ensure that
one Commission carries out the inquiry. The language of the CPCR Act
is clear that if the State Commission or any other Commission constituted     F
under law has started an inquiry under Section 14 then the National
Commission should stay its hands in the matter. 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. We have no          G
doubt in our mind that both the Commissions are expected to function in
a 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 Bengal
Commission for Protection of Child Rights (WBCPCR) had actually
started the inquiry into the matter before the NCPCR started its inquiry.
                                                                              H
986             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A            13. Section 13(1)(c) empowers the State Commissions to inquire
      into 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; to
             make investigation or inquisition.”
B            In the context in which the word ‘inquire’ occurs in Section
      13(1)(j), it obviously means something more than just making a request
      for information. 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
C     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. This power to inquire under Section
      13(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 and
D     recommend initiation of proceedings in such cases. Reading these two
      clauses together it is obvious to us that ‘inquire’ is not making note on
      the file but something more. We are dealing with children who cannot
      complain. The Commissions are meant to protect children who have no
      voice. It is these Commissions who have to give voice and feelings to
E     the distress calls of children. The Commission can, thereafter, take action
      by itself if permitted under law or can recommend initiation of proceedings
      in accordance with law.
          14. It would be apposite to refer to Sections 14 and 15 of the
      CPCR Act which apply both to the National Commission and the State
F     Commissions. The same read as follows:-
             “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 trying
             a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and, in
G            particular, in respect of the following matters, namely:-
             (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and
             examining him on oath;
             (b) discovery and production of any document;

      1 rd
H     3 Edition, 2005, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Pg. 2358
   NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD                                 987
    RIGHTS v. DR. RAJESH KUMAR [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

      (c) receiving evidence on affidavits;                                    A
      (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court
      or office; and
      (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or
      documents.
                                                                               B
      (2) The Commission shall have the power to forward any case to
      a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same and the Magistrate
      to whom any such case is forwarded shall proceed to hear the
      complaint against the accused as if the case has been forwarded
      to 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 the
      following steps upon the completion of an inquiry held under this
      Act, namely:-
      (i)    where the inquiry discloses, the Commission of violation of
             child rights of a serious nature or contravention of provisions   D
             of any law for the time being in force, it may recommend to
             the concerned Government or authority the initiation of
             proceedings for prosecution or such other action as the
             Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or
             persons;
                                                                               E
      (ii)   approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned
             for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem
             necessary;
      (iii) recommend to the concerned Government or authority for
            thegrant of such interim relief to the victim or the members       F
            of his family as the Commission may consider necessary.”
        15. 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
                                                                               G
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                H
988             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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.
             16. In the present case, the dispute is who started inquiry first –
      whether it was the WBCPCR or the National Commission. As far as
C     the National Commission is concerned, there is no dispute that it started
      its inquiry on 07.03.2017 when its members visited Jalpaiguri to inquire
      into the matter. The stand of the National Commission is that they were,
      for the first time, informed on 24.07.2017that the State Commission has
      taken cognizance and is inquiring into the matter even though they had
D     written various letters to the various officials including the District
      Magistrate and the police officials in this regard. From the list of dates
      filed by the WBCPCR, it appears that on12.07.2016 the Director, Child
      Rights and Trafficking, West Bengal (for short ‘the Director, CRT’)
      wrote to the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri seeking a report on the illegal
      child trafficking there. An inquiry team was formed by the District
E     Magistrate, 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 that
      the Specialised Adoption Agency(for short ‘the SAA’), Jalpaiguri is not
      functioning as per the provisions of Adoption Guidelines, 2015 and the JJ
      Act and 15 children from the SAA Jalpaiguri, run by the North Bengal
F     Peoples’ Development Centre (for short ‘the NBPDC’) were transferred
      to other institutions. On 17.01.2017, the Central Adoption Resource
      Authority (for short ‘the CARA’) filed a complaint with the CID, West
      Bengal. On 22.01.2017, a report appeared in local newspaper about this
      child trafficking racket. On 15.02.2017, a team was constituted by the
      CID, West Bengal to investigate the complaint made by the CARA. On
G     16.02.2017, 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 the
      District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, informing that the State Commission had
      taken cognizance of the report published in the daily newspaper on
      22.01.2017. On 19.02.2017, a formal First Information Report (FIR)
H     was registered in the matter. The report dated 11.01.2017, referred to
   NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD                                   989
    RIGHTS v. DR. RAJESH KUMAR [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

above, was sent to the WBCPCR on 24.02.2017. Thereafter, news items              A
again appeared on 26.02.2017 and two women officials of the concerned
adoption centre were arrested. Admittedly, NCPCR took note of this
instance on 03.03.2017 and on 07.03.2017 two members of the NCPCR
visited Jalpaiguri to conduct an inquiry.
       17. We had requested learned counsel appearing for the WBCPCR             B
to provide the file of WBCPCR in relation to this matter, which was
provided. After going through the file, all that we can say isthat the file is
not maintained like an official file. The papers were kept casually. Except
for the noting sheet, the other papers were not tagged. The other papers
were also not paginated. In such a file, there can be additions and
alterations at any stage. We, therefore, cannot place too much reliance          C
on such a poorly maintained file and direct the WBCPCR to ensure that
in future, files, especially of complaints,are maintained in a proper manner.
According to the documents which form a part of this file, the WBCPCR
took suo motu cognizance of the incident on 30.01.2017 on the basis of
the newspapersreport dated 22.01.2017. It was stated in the noting sheet         D
that the matter be put up for appropriate action. Though this note is
dated 30.01.2017and was put up to the Chairperson,WBCPCR, it appears
that the Chairperson wrote that she should be reminded after 10 days
for follow up action. The file was again put up before the Chairperson
on 13.02.2017.On 14.02.2017 it was ordered that the District Magistrate/
District Children Protection Officer (DCPO) may be asked to submit a             E
report. A draft letter was put up which was approved on 16.02.2017 and
dispatched on 17.02.2017. The DCPO, Jalpaiguri sent the report through
mail dated 24.02.2017. The matter was again placed before the
Chairperson, who directed that the report be kept for records. The next
noting on the file is of 15.03.2017. This note of 15.03.2017 has been put        F
up with regard to the visit of the Chairperson and Secretary to Jalpaiguri
on 10.03.2017 and 11.03.2017 to assist and monitor the situation after
the recent cases of child trafficking. Though, the visit is dated 10.03.2017
and 11.03.2017, the note is put up on 15.03.2017 and approved on the
same date. We are unable to understand why the note for the visit was
not put up prior to the visit. We have perused the report prepared by the        G
Chairperson of the WBCPCR and find that the report is more in the
nature of allegations against the members of the NCPCR. The report
virtually does not deal with the issue related to trafficking of the children.
We shall deal with this report at a later stage.
                                                                                 H
990             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A            18. Even if we accept the record of the WBCPCR to be the
      gospel truth then also other than using the word ‘takes suo-moto
      cognizance’ on 30.01.2017, the WBCPCR had taken no steps to inquire
      into the matter, which is the mandate of Section 13(1)(j) of the CPCR
      Act, till the visit of its Chairperson on 10.03.2017 and 11.03.2017. We
      make it clear that in every case a personal visit is not required but the
B
      manner 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 was
      directed that the matter be placed for reminding the Chairperson to take
      follow 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 an
C     inquiry. All that was done was to order the District Magistrate/DCPO to
      submit a report. That report was filed on 24.02.2017 and it was ordered
      that the report be kept on record. It appears that it is only after the visit
      of the members of the NCPCR that the WBCPCR actually felt it
      necessary to itself visit Jalpaiguri and take stock of the situation.
D             19. As pointed above, as far as NCPCR is concerned, on
      03.03.2017 a communication was sent by the NCPCR to the District
      Magistrate, Jalpaiguri wherein he was asked to give specific information
      with regard to the home in question. Thereafter, on 07.03.2017 two
      members of the NCPCR visited Jalpaiguri and even if the inquiry did not
      start on 03.03.2017, it definitely started on 07.03.2017. It found various
E     deficiencies especially with regard to non-constitution of Child Welfare
      Committee (CWC) in New Jalpaiguri District from 23.08.2013-
      28.08.2015. It also found that ad hoc CWC was functioning which is
      against the provisions of law. Therefore, the NCPCR sent a letter on
      16.03.2017 to the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri seeking status of
F     registration of homes, status of CWCs etc. On 23.03.2017, the NCPCR
      sent another letter to the District Magistrate specifically asking whether
      the WBCPCR had commenced an inquiry into the matter before the
      visit of the members of the NCPCR or after the initiation of the inquiry
      by the NCPCR. To this, no reply was given by the District Magistrate.
      Then, the NCPCR summoned the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri on
G     12.04.2017 for personal appearance on 25.04.2017. The District
      Magistrate did not appear but sent some information vide communication
      dated 21.04.2017. However, in this communication also there is no reply
      to the specific query as to whether the WBCPCR had initiated an inquiry
      into the matter. The NCPCR also took no steps for almost two months.
H     On 20.06.2017 the NCPCR sought the following information from the
      ADGP, CID, West Bengal (respondent no.1):-
   NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD                                 991
    RIGHTS v. DR. RAJESH KUMAR [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

      “1. In this case, sale of as many as about 17 children has been          A
          mentioned in this case, in which children were sold both in
          the country and abroad. Since this organization has come in
          existence, how many children have been adopted through
          this organization, provide list of those to the Commission.
      2.   In this case, children were given to Non-Resident Indian and        B
           foreign couples both, hence this case seems to be case of
           international trafficking. Record concerning as to how many
           children have been given to Non-resident and foreign coupes
           be made available to the Commission.
      3.   According to newspaper, forged papers and papers of
           National Adoption Authority have been used in this crime in         C
           forged manner. Copies of papers seized by CID, statement
           & list/copies of evidence be made available to the
           Commission.
      4.   List of all the detained/arrested people in this case, copy of
           First Information Report, copies of all the investigation reports   D
           be provided to the Commission. Copy of the statement of
           detained people.
      5.   From the year 2013 to 2015 Child Welfare Committee had
           not been constituted in District Jalpaiguri, in place thereof,
           Ad hoc Committee had been working. The following-                   E
           mentioned papers/documents relating to this Committee be
           made available to the Commission:-
             i. Copy of order for constituting ad hoc committee.
             ii. People included in the ad hoc committee, list of those
                 with their names, posts/designations be made available        F
                 to the Commission.
             iii. Minutes of the meetings convened by ad hoc Committee
                  during its tenure.
             iv. Decisions about how many children were taken by Ad
                 hoc Committee, copies of all the case files concerning        G
                 with all those.
                If any charge sheet has been filed in court, then copy
                thereof.”
       20. On the same day i.e. 20.06.2017, the District Magistrate,
Jalpaiguri, was also directed by the NCPCR to give information pertaining      H
to the constitution of ad hoc committee and members of the ad hoc
992            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A     committee. That very day another communication was sent by the
      NCPCR to the Department of Women &Child Development, West
      Bengal, to initiate an inquiry into the matterand inform the NCPCR about
      the report of the Government. According to the NCPCR, no response
      was received from any of the authorities. Thereafter, another reminder
      was sent on 13.07.2017. Left with no option, on 20.07.2017, summons
B     were issued to the ADGP, CID, West Bengal to appear before the
      NCPCR in person on 25.07.2017 along with relevant documents. A
      communication was also sent to the Chief Secretary, West Bengal on
      22.07.2017 asking for information. The ADGP, CID, West Bengal by
      letter/fax on 24.07.2017 informed the NCPCR that since WBCPCR
C     has already proceeded with the matter, the NCPCR should stay its hand
      in the present matter. Meanwhile on 21.07.2017, a report was sent by
      the CID, West Bengal supplying some information but most of the
      information was not sent. Thereafter, the NCPCR issued summons to
      the ADGP, CID, West Bengal on 14.08.2017 to appear before the
      NCPCR on 29.08.2017. The ADGP, CID, West Bengal challenged these
D     summons by filing a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court. The Advocate
      General of the State appeared for Dr. Rajesh Kumar, ADGP, CID, West
      Bengal. The High Court vide impugned order, prima facie, came to the
      conclusion that since the WBCPCR had taken cognizance of the matter
      on 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 between
      the 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.

F            22. The police have acted, a case has been filed, accused have
      been arrested and we are told that most of the children have been reunited
      with their parents. We are purposely not commenting on the criminal
      aspects of the matter. We refrain from doing so because any comment
      from us may affect the trial of the accused who are entitled to a fair and
      free trial. In fact, since criminal proceedings in respect to the illegal
G     adoptions had already started, no inquiry could actually be conducted by
      either of the two Commissions with respect to the same. However, 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. The Commissions can also inquire into the factual
      aspects which led to the trafficking of the children, though not the actual
H
   NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD                                993
    RIGHTS v. DR. RAJESH KUMAR [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

crime itself. In fact, we are of the view that such inquiries are necessary   A
so that such events do not occur in the future. In case, the CWCs had
been properly constituted may be this unfortunate situation would not
have arisen.
        23. Though we are of the view that an inquiry into the alleged
illegal adoption could not be conducted because a criminal case had           B
already been registered, at the same time, we cannot shut our eyes to
the manner in which both the State Commission (WBCPCR), the National
Commission (NCPCR) and the senior officials of the State CID have
dealt with the matter. We have already commented on the lack of alacrity
on the part of the WBCPCR which purportedly took cognizance of the
matter on 30.01.2017 but no effective steps were taken to inquire into        C
the matter till 10.03.2017 except calling for a report. The members of
the NCPCR visited Jalpaiguri on 07.03.2017 and have recorded the
statement of CWC members. According to the statements so recorded,
one of the accused, who was Secretary of the NBPDC which was
running the concerned SAA,prayed for certificates for 20 children to be       D
declared legally fit for adoption whom they placed before Prospective
Adoptive Parents (PAPs)without Legally Fit for Adoption (LFA)
Certificatesfrom CWC, Jalpaiguri. According to the statements, the
members of the CWC were shocked that the legal procedure had not
been followed. According to these members, they complained to the
various officials but they were compelled to give certificates that the       E
children were legally fit for adoption. In the absence of the parties who
have made the statements, we would not like to make any further comment
except to state that if any member of a CWC can be compelled or
pressurized to give such a certificate then that member has no business
of ever being appointed as member of CWC or in any capacity in a child        F
rights institution.
       24. We, however, find that in the report of the Chairperson,
WBCPCR she herself mentioned that they had visited the home and
inspected the premises but nothing more is written as to the manner in
which the children were trafficked. Rest of the report deals with alleged     G
misconduct of the members of the NCPCR when they visited the home
at Korak. It is alleged that the Superintendent of the Home complained
that the NCPCR team had brought entire media including the television
media inside the centre and despite protest of the Superintendent, the
media was brought inside the home. Again, the Chairperson mentions
                                                                              H
994            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A     that the District Magistrate also complained that the team of the NCPCR
      had brought media everywhere and had insulted everyone. However,
      we did not find anything of this sort mentioned in the communication
      sent by the District Magistrate. Be that as it may, we find that the report
      of the Chairperson WBCPCR does not deal at all with the issue of child
      trafficking.
B
             25. We would like to make it clear that when arguments were
      taking place the report of the Chairperson, WBCPCR was not brought
      to our knowledge and we only saw it in the file. Therefore, we cannot
      rely on the report of the Chairperson, WBCPCR especially since we
      have not given the NCPCR a right to rebut what is stated in this report.
C     However, even if all aspects are not correct but only one aspect of
      taking the media inside the home is correct, we have to express our
      displeasure with the same. We would like to make it clear that no
      person(s), including members of the Commissions whether it be the
      National Commission or the State Commission,are permitted to take
D     media with them when they visit any of the homes set up under the JJ
      Act or under any other law. The privacy of the children is of the highest
      importance. In this fight between two bodies, the children cannot be
      madesubject matter of a media war. We sincerely hope that nothing like
      this will happen in future.
E            26. Coming to the role of the National Commission, we somehow
      feel that the National Commission was also more interested in settling
      scores with the State Commission or with the officials of the State
      Government rather than ameliorating the plight of the children. On
      03.03.2017, the following information was asked by the NCPCR from
      the District Magistrate:-
F
            “1. Whether this Home was registered? Copy of the registration
                of the organization, list of officers and employees of the
                organization be provided to the Commission.
            2. Whether this Home had been registered from Central
G              Adoption Authority? Whatever papers relating to registration
               in CARA are available, be made available to the Commission.
            3. Whether this organization had been working as District
               Adoption Authority? Papers relating to registration in the
               Women & Child Development Department, West Bengal be
               made available to the Commission.
H
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD                              995
 RIGHTS v. DR. RAJESH KUMAR [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

  4. If this organization has been run under section 41 Juvenile         A
     Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 registered
     Specific Adoption Agency recognized by Central Adoption
     Resources 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 been         B
     mentioned in this case, in which children were sold both in the
     couintry8 and abroad. Since this organization has come in
     existence, how many children have been adopted through this
     organization, provide list of those to the Commission.
  6. In this case, children were given to Non-Resident Indian and        C
     foreign coupes both, hence this case seems to be case of
     international trafficking. Record concerning as to how many
     children have been given to Non-resident and foreign couples
     be made available to the Commission.
  7. According to newspaper, forged papers and papers of National        D
     Adoption Authority have been used in this crime in forged
     manner. 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 of
     First Information Report, copies of all the investigation reports   E
     be provided to the Commission.
  9. How many children were sent by Child Welfare Committee
     (CWC) to the organization, how many times CWC visited
     organization during the past five years and whatever other
     proceedings have been initiated relating to the organization,       F
     copies of those be made available to the Commission.
  10. Reports of all the inspections conducted by the District
      Administration in the above-said organization in the past three
      years, and copy of report of inspections conducted at the time
      of registration of organization be made available to the
                                                                         G
      Commission.
  11. Make available list of adoption organization or organizations/
      institutions concerning with welfare of children (CCI) whether
      registered/unregistered in Jalpaiguri be made available to the
      Commission.
                                                                         H
996               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A           12. If any other organization/institutions have remained involved
                in illegal acts and cases would have been registered against
                them, list of those be made available to the Commission.
            13. Because limits of District Jalpaiguri are attached with
                international limits of Nepal and Bangladesh, therefore, list of
B               cases of trafficking registered in the district and list of
                complaints registered about missing children etc. from District.
                also be made available to the Commission.”
              27. In our opinion, the District Magistrate should have given the
      requisite information to all the aforesaid questions except Question Nos.
C     7 and 8 because these related to copies of papers seized by the CID and
      list of all detained people in the case. The Commissionsunder the CPCR
      Act have no jurisdiction to monitor criminal cases. Their jurisdiction does
      not extend to monitoring the law and order which is a State subject.
            28. Thereafter, on 16.03.2017 the following information was also
D     asked for by the NCPCR from the District Magistrate:
            “14. From the year 2013 to 2015 Child Welfare Committee had
            not been constituted in District Jalpaiguri, in place thereof, Ad hoc
            Committee had been working. The following-mentioned papers/
            documents relating to this Committee be made available to the
E           Commission: -
            i.    Copy of order for constituting ad hoc committee.
            ii.   People included in the ad hoc committee, list of those with
                  their names, posts/designations be made available to the
                  Commission.
F
            iii. Minutes of the meetings convened by ad hoc Committee
                 during its tenure.
            iv. Decisions about how many children were taken by Ad hoc
                Committee, copies of all the case files concerning with all
                those.
G
            15. During the course of inquiry, it was given to understand that
            office of the District Children Protection Office (DCPO) which
            is available in the premises of the Collectorate itself, was sealed
            and case has been registered against few people. Particulars of
            all those and the following-mentioned information relating to those
H           are desired:-
   NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD                                 997
    RIGHTS v. DR. RAJESH KUMAR [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

      i. People who were appointed in DCPO Office in the past 10               A
         years.
      ii. Order for all the appointments.
      iii. List of all the people appointed.”
        29. In our opinion, the aforesaid information could have also been     B
provided by the District Magistrate but, for reasons best known to her,
this information was not provided promptly. On 23.03.2017, the NCPCR
sent a letter to the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri in which the District
Magistrate was specifically asked to answer the following query:-
      1. Whether West Bengal State Commission for Protection of                C
      Rights of Children have commenced any inquiry in the above-
      said case as to your level before approaching of Commission or
      after commencing inquiry by the National Commission for
      Protection of Rights of Children? If so, then please provide details
      thereof.
                                                                               D
       From the record it appears that no answer was sent by the District
Magistrate to this query. Therefore, the NCPCR was justified in further
proceeding with the matter because it was neither informed by District
Magistrate or the WBCPCR that the WBCPCR had already started
inquiry into the matter. It was only after summons were issued to the
District Magistrate on 12.04.2017 that she sent some documents.                E
However, with regard to a large number of documents, it was stated
that since the concerned DCPO has been arrested and the documents
were in her custody, the requisite papers were not traceable. With regard
to some of the documents it was mentioned that the CID, West Bengal
may be contacted because those documents are with the police in                F
connection with the criminal case.
       30. It was thereafter that a communication was sent on 20.06.2017
to Dr. Rajesh Kumar (IPS), ADGP, CID, West Bengal by the NCPCR.
This was the first letter sent to a police official. In this letter, certain
information quoted hereinabove was called for. Dr. Rajesh Kumar,ADGP,
                                                                               G
CID, West Bengal did not provide the aforesaid information and thereafter
on 13.07.2017 a reminder was sent to him. Similar reminder was sent to
the District Magistrate also. Thereafter, on 20.07.2017 summons were
issued to Dr. Rajesh Kumar. As mentioned earlier, Dr. Rajesh Kumar
sent a letter/fax on 24.07.2017 mentioning that the WBCPCR had taken
cognizance of the matter and, therefore, the NCPCR is barred from              H
998             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A     taking up the inquiry. Reply was sent on 24.07.2017 informing him 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 the National Commission to summon him and also taking
      exception to the language used in the letter. We fail to understand why
B
      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
C     Commission. The answer given by the State CID to the NCPCRis 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
D
      of the case but dealt with formation of the ad hoc committees and the
      absence of a properly constituted CWC could have been provided.
             31. With regard to the letter dated 03.03.2017, we have already
      indicated that all the information except that relating to question nos. 7
      and 8 should have been provided by the District Magistrate. In fact,
E     even with regard to question nos. 7 and 8, even if the copies of the
      papers seized and copies of the statements recorded were not to be
      provided, there was no problem in providing the list of the detained persons
      and copy of the FIR. As far as the second letter dated 16.03.2017 is
      concerned, again we find no reason why the information could not be
F     provided. But since the District Magistrate had responded that some of
      the information was not available as it was handed over to the State
      CID, we would have expected that the ADGP, CID, West Bengal should
      have provided the necessary information to the NCPCR except that
      which related only to the investigation of the criminal case. In our view,
      neither the National Commission nor the State Commission had jurisdiction
G     to investigate the criminal matter and they cannot ask for copies of the
      statements recorded by the investigating authorities. That can only be a
      matter between the prosecution and the accused.
          32. Having said so, we are clearly of the view that Dr. Rajesh
      Kumar was obviously not cooperating with the NCPCR for reasons
H
   NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD                                  999
    RIGHTS v. DR. RAJESH KUMAR [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

best known to him. In our view, the State Commission had not started            A
any inquiry into the illegal setting up of CWCs or the alleged ad hoc
CWC being constituted in violation of the laws. We see no reason why
Dr. Rajesh Kumar has not responded to the letter of the NCPCR clearly
providing the information indicated above. His reply that the documents
had been filed in court is obviously an evasive answer. We are constrained
                                                                                B
to make observations against Dr. Rajesh Kumar even though he is not
present before us because we have no doubt in our mind that he is
evading accepting notices sent from this Court.
        33. Police officials should realise that when the Commissions
constituted under the CPCR Act ask for some relevant information, they
must respectfully reply to the same and not rake up the dispute of so-          C
called‘jurisdiction’. Even the police officials must realise that these
Commissions have been constituted for the welfare of the children. Even
assuming that the WBCPCR hadstarted an inquiry, we see no reason
why Dr. Rajesh Kumar could not have provided the information to the
NCPCR. It was not for him to question the jurisdiction of the NCPCR.            D
If any official is asked for information by any of the Commissions, he is
duty bound to reply to the letters of the Commission. 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          E
decided either by the Commission or by a Court of law. Therefore, in
our view, Dr. Rajesh Kumar would have been better advised to furnish
information to the NCPCR rather than challenging the jurisdiction of the
NCPCR.
       34. Having held so, we are clearly of the view that even the             F
language of the letters sent by the NCPCR to Dr. Rajesh Kumar was
unnecessarily harsh. We are not repeating the contents of the letters
but, according to us, when a Commission asks for information, the letter
should be formulated like a request and not like an order. Even if there is
non-compliance of such request, the Commission should send another              G
letter in stronger terms directing the official to provide the requisite
information. But there is no need to threaten officials with arrest. This
should only be done as a last resort.
       35. We may also note that though the National Commission showed
a lot of urgency till the matter went up to the Calcutta High Court, after      H
1000             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 1 S.C.R.


 A     the matter came to this Court, for almost 2 years virtually nothing was
       done and we were orally informed that due to lack of translation of
       documents from Bengali to Hindi/English, the inquiry could not be
       completed. We are of the view that if the NCPCR decides to inquire
       into a matter then it must procure the services of a translator to get the
       documents translated from the regional languages. It cannot, on the one
 B
       hand, take over the inquiry even if the State Commission has not started
       the inquiry and, on the other hand, rely upon the authorities of the State
       to provide the translation. We are sure that there are enough universities
       and colleges in Delhi where Bengali is taught and if the National
       Commission really wanted to complete the inquiry, the documents could
 C     have been got translated.
              36. As far as the questions framed by us in Para 12 of this judgment
       are concerned, we answer 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, we are of the view that there is
 D     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 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
 E     need to be inquired into. With regard to Question No.3 we hold that even
       a State Commission has the power to inquire into those matters which
       fall 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 for
       adoption abroad. Here again, we are of the view that if the State
 F     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.
 G            37. As clearly held by us above, both the Commissions have to
       work for the best interest ofthe children in a spirit of cooperation.
       Unfortunately, in this case, there has been no cooperation rather
       mudslinging at each other. We would like to reiterate and re-emphasise
       that there are no jurisdictional issues involved.

 H
   NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD                                   1001
    RIGHTS v. DR. RAJESH KUMAR [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

       38. In view of the above, we are clearly of the view that Dr.             A
Rajesh Kumar should have furnished the information which appears to
now have been furnished by the State authorities. If such information
has not been furnished, the present incumbent holding the post of ADGP,
CID, West Bengal is directed to furnish the information to the National
Commission as well as to Juvenile Justice Committee of the High Court
                                                                                 B
of Calcutta within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this judgment.The counsel for the State of West Bengal shall inform the
present Additional Director General of Police, Criminal Investigation
Department, West Bengal of these directions.
       39. As is evident from the facts narrated above, both the State
Commission (WBCPCR) and the National Commission have been                        C
woefully lax in the matter. Hence we direct that other than the issues
which form part of the criminal case, all other matters relating to the
issue in hand and larger issues of appointment of CWCs and heads of
CWCs, not only as far as this case is concerned, but also for the entire
State of West Bengal, should be monitored by the High Court of Calcutta,         D
preferably by a bench headed by the Chairperson of the Juvenile Justice
Committee of the High Court of Calcutta in a public interest litigation.
In furtherance of these directions, we direct the Registry of this Court to
send a copy of this judgment to the Registrar General of the Calcutta
High Court, who shall place the same before the Hon’ble Chief Justice
of the High Court for constitution of an appropriate Bench. We request           E
the Bench so constituted to deal with the matter as per the urgency
involved and if required, to establish a fool proof mechanism so that
such occurrences do not take place in future.
       40. This appeal is partly disposed of in the aforesaid terms in so
far as the disputes inter se the NCPCR and WBCPCR are concerned.                 F
We, however, make it clear that the issue of setting up of human rights
courts and appointment of special public prosecutors for such human
rights courts shall be dealt with in this appeal as well as in the Writ
Petition (C) No.819 of 2019. All pending application(s) related to the
dispute between the NCPCR and the Dr. Rajesh Kumar, ADGP, CID,                   G
West Bengal (respondent no.1) & WBCPCR, shall stand(s) disposed of
accordingly.


Ankit Gyan                                          Appeal partly disposed of.
                                                                                 H