The Supreme Court recently came down upon the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) for filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution against the State of Jharkhand [National Commission for Protection of Child Rights v State of Jharkhand and ors].
In an order dated September 24, a Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh explained that Article 32 is meant for citizens to enforce their fundamental rights, and statutory bodies cannot file writ petitions under the said Article against State governments or Union Territories.
"When Article 32 is meant for citizens to enforce their fundamental rights, the said Article cannot be the basis to file a Writ Petition by statutory authorities against a State/Union Territory for seeking directions in aid of discharging its functions under the statute ... (or) seek enforcement of “fundamental rights” against private citizens. The same is incongruous and not in accordance with what is envisaged under the Constitution", it observed.
We do not think that such vague such vague and omnibus prayers could have been sought by NCPCR.Supreme Court
The observations came while dismissing the NCPCR's plea seeking directions for a Supreme Court-monitored probe into organisations indulging in illegal child trade.
The plea sought measures to be taken in Jharkhand in order to enable the child rights body to exercise its functions.
The plea also sought constitution of a Special Investigation Team in every States to combat illegal child trade.
The child rights body filed the plea after taking suo motu cognisnace of a July 2018 newspaper report alleging an instance of illegal child trade connected to an NGO in Jharkhand.
It moved the top court after it was not satisfied with the response of the State's Chief Secretary in the matter.
The top court at the outset termed the litigation strange since the reliefs sought were vague and omnibus.
"Bearing in mind the nature of reliefs sought, we find that the reliefs sought are, in the first place, vague and omnibus and therefore, can neither be entertained nor the said reliefs be considered. dismissed. The writ petition is hence, liable to be. ...a statutory body could not have filed the Writ Petition invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking the aforesaid prayers," the Court said.
It, therefore, dismissed the petition.
The Court clarified that the NCPCR is empowered to take steps as per law for the protection of children caught in illegal trade.
Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi with advocates Abhaid Parikh, Katyayani Anand, Saumya Singh, Aayush Shivam, and Kavita Chaturvedi appeared for the NCPCR.
The top court had recently questioned the locus of NCPCR in a case under the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act against an archbishop and a nun.
[Read order]