Madhya Pradesh High Court slams NCPCR for "ill-intentioned" case against Christian missionary

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed a first information report (FIR) registered against Dr Ajai Lall, a Christian missionary and office-bearer of Aadhaarshila Sansthan, for charges related to trafficking of children who were given for adoption 15 years ago [Dr. Ajai Lall v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others].The Court also expressed concern over the involvement of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), which had prompted the investigation despite there being no complaints from either the children involved or their adoptive parents.Justice Sanjay Dwivedi noted that the adoption was done as per legal procedure and was approved by the family court."Apparently, the competent court i.e. Family Court, Damoh at the time adoption had to consider the report of the Adoption Committee containing history of the child and then opined that the children are legally free. Once, the committee has given opinion that the children were legally free and that has been accepted by the competent court and allowed the application for adoption; the said order was never put to test and therefore only because there emerged a doubt in the mind of respondent No.5 (NCPCR chairperson), his action cannot be held justifiable," the Court said..Once it was amply clear that the order of adoption was passed after scrutinising each and every aspect related to the children, the conduct and status of the child cannot be re-investigated on the whims of the NCPCR, the Court made it clear.The prosecution of the petitioner was driven by malice and designed to tarnish his reputation in society, the single-judge said while quashing the FIR..Dr Lall was associated with Aadhaarshila Sansthan, previously known as the Central India Christian Mission, which operated two institutions under its umbrella - Bal Bhawan and Central India Academy. Bal Bhawan functioned as an orphanage while the Central India Academy was a school with residential facilities.Both institutions were closed down - Bal Bhawan following the cancellation of its registration on August 14, 2023, and Central India Academy at the end of the 2023-24 academic session..The charges against Lall originated from allegations surrounding the adoption of two children from his orphanage 15 years ago. He faced charges for allegedly failing to provide the required details to the City Superintendent of Police about the adoptions.The NCPCR had alleged that after adoption, both the children were still found in Bal Bhawan, but this information was never furnished.Therefore, he was booked under Sections 370 (trafficking of persons) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as Section 80 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.The FIR against him was registered on August 7, 2024 at the Damoh (Dehat) Police Station..Counsel for Lall argued that none of the children had complained about a lack of care from their adoptive parents, and no agency had raised concerns about the adoptive parents failing to provide proper education after the adoption.As per the petitioner, the children were not found in Bal Bhawan, but found in the hostel of the Central India Academy.It was also alleged that NCPCR Chairperson Priyank Kanoongo used social media to defame the petitioner and also to mount pressure on the statutory authorities. Deployment of a huge police force, encircling the petitioner’s residence, crystallizes the ill-intention of NCPCR, it was argued..The Court said that the NCPCR's involvement in this case amounted to an overreach of its mandate."When the children have never raised any objection about any exploitation or ill-treatment from anybody relating to the orphanage and also after adoption, the parents, then no question arises for respondent No.5 to discharge the obligation as has been provided under Section 109 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015," the Court said.It also castigated the NCPCR for violating the mandate under Section 3 of the 2015 Act which provides that every child has right to protection of his privacy, and that all past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system should be erased, except in special circumstances."Seemingly, the respondents have violated the aforesaid provision and anyhow have not protected the privacy and confidentiality of the children, conversely, they have disclosed the names of the children in their communication," the Court said.When the children were found legally free for adoption by the competent court of law and after the orders passed by the court, the said children have come out of the definition of ‘orphan’ and acquired the status of normal children having all legal rights as are available to the child in general, the Court noted.Once the order is passed by the competent court after getting an opinion from the Adoption Committee under Adoption Regulations, 2017, there is no purpose to revisit the past of the child, the Court underscored.If there was any doubt regarding the procedure, the order of adoption could have been assailed, the Court said..While quashing the case against Dr Lall, the Court held that when a criminal proceeding is clearly driven by malice or filed with the intent of personal revenge, it can use its power under Article 226 to quash the FIR..The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocates Vivek Tankha and Shashank Shekhar, along with Advocate Bhoopesh Tiwari.Advocate General Prashant Singh and Deputy Advocate General BD Singh appeared for the State.Advocates Akshat Arjaria and Abid Parikh represented the NCPCR Chairperson.Advocates Aakash Choudhury and Vishal Daniel appeared for intervenors..[Read Order]