Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 1312
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.
Suvendu Adhikari – Petitioner
Versus
West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights and Others – Respondents
WPA No. 2167 of 2023
Decided On : 03-02-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Soumya Majumder, Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Anish Kumar Mukherjee, Suryaneel Das, Oishee Choudhuri.
For the Respondents: Debashis Banerjee, Rakesh Jana, Anirban Ray, Rajarshi Dutta, Ayan Poddar.
IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction and powers of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights are defined by the violation of child rights as per the Act and the UN Convention, and any action must be within the scope of these provisions.
Headnote:
Child Rights - Jurisdiction of Commission - Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child - Section 13, Section 13(1)(j), Rule 18 - The Act and the UN Convention define the jurisdiction and powers of the Commission based on violation of child rights, including privacy, identity, and reputation. The tweet in question did not violate the rights of the child and fell outside the purview of the Act and the Convention.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an elected Member of the State Legislative Assembly, tweeted about security arrangements for a birthday party, leading to show-cause Notices and a hearing Notice issued by the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights. The petitioner sought quashing of the Notices and the complaint made by a respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the tweet did not violate the rights of the child as defined under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Notices and communications issued by the Commission were held to be without jurisdiction and were stayed by the Court.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Commission, Validity of show-cause Notices and hearing Notice, Interpretation of child rights under the Act and the UN Convention
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the tweet did not violate the rights of the child as defined under the Act and the UN Convention, and the Commission acted without jurisdiction in issuing the Notices and communications.
Final Decision: The Court stayed the impugned show-cause Notices and the Notice of hearing until the matter is heard out on affidavits.
JUDGMENT :
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.
1. The dispute in this writ petition arises out of a tweet made by the petitioner with regard to the security arrangements for a birthday party of “Koyla Bhaipo’s son” (words used in the tweet). The petitioner is an elected Member of and the leader of the opposition of the State Legislative Assembly. The tweet was published from the petitioner’s official Twitter handle “@Suvendu WB.” The tweet set a chain of events in motion beginning with a show-cause Notice dated 18th November, 2022 issued by an Advisor to the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights issued pursuant to a complaint made by the respondent no. 4 and culminating in a Notice dated 18th January, 2023 of the Commission asking the petitioner to attend a hearing on 7th February, 2023 with regard to the complaint of the respondent no. 4.
2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the show-cause Notices dated 18th November, 2022 and 23rd December, 2022 as well as the complaint of the respondent no. 4 together with the hearing Notice of 18th January, 2023.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner along with the learned Deputy Solicitor General urges that the impugned Notices were issued without jurisdiction since the Notices do not attract the provisions of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 or the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights Rules, 2012.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Commission submits that the tweet is actionable under the Act and the Rules including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
5. The contention of the Commission is adopted by learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent no. 4 who submits that the allegations made in the complaint should be inquired into and the petitioner should accordingly attend the hearing before the Commission on 7th February, 2023.
6. First, the point with regard to jurisdiction.
7. The Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, notified on 20th January, 2006, was enacted for constituting a National Commission and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights and Children’s Courts for providing speedy trial of offences against children or violation of the rights of children and matters connected therewith. The expression “Child rights” is defined under section 2(b) of the Act and includes rights which find place in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which was adopted on 20th November, 1989 and ratified by the Government of India on 11th December, 1992. Section 13(1)(c) empowers the Commission to inquire into violation of child rights and recommend initiation of proceedings in fit cases and section 13(1)(j) enables the Commission to take suo motu notice of matters relating to deprivation and violation of child rights. Sections 14 and 15 empower the Commission to try matters in a manner akin to a civil court trying a suit under The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and initiate steps upon the completion of inquiry held under the Act. The steps include recommending grant of appropriate interim relief to the victims or members of the family of the child to the concerned Government. The State Government has been given the power to constitute a State Commission for Protection of Child Rights to perform the functions assigned to the Commission under section 17 of the Act.
8. Rule 18 of the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights Rules, 2012 prescribes the procedure for the admission and disposal of complaints, sub-rule (2) whereof specifies the complaints which are not admissible before the State Commission. Rule 18(2)(b) includes complaints:
“which are not clear or without any name or having a disguised name.”
9. The provisions of the Act, read together with the Rules, would indicate that the functions of the Commission under section 13 and the powers which a Commission may exercise are derived from and assume justification from the purpose for which the Act of 2005 was enac
