IS CHILD RIGHTS COMMISSION A TOOTHLESS TIGER

THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS in W.P. No. 2116 of 2011 and M.P.No. 1 of 2011 Decided on 07.04.2011 in Srinivas Rajan Vs. Respondent: The Director of Matriculation Schools and Ors.

Is Child Rights Commission a toothless Tiger?

29. Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for fifth Respondent submitted that the complaint made by the Petitioner will not come within the province of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. Therefore, there was no necessity to issue a direction to the Commission to make an enquiry on the same. But this contention of the learned Senior Counsel was erroneous since the term "child rights" is defined on broad terms under Section 2(b) of the Act which reads as follows:

(b)"child rights" includes the children's rights adopted in the United Nations convention on the Rights of the Child on 20th November, 1989 and ratified by the Government of India on the 11th December, 1992;

30. As can be seen from the said definition, the Convention of Rights of the Child, dated 20.11.1989 is valid and the Commission has power to enquire into such a complaint and even can take a suo motu notice on the matter relating to deprivation and violation of child rights, non implementation of law providing for protection and development of children, non compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating hardships to and ensuring welfare of the children and to provide relief to such children or take up the issues arising out of such matters with appropriate authorities. For deciding these matters, the Commission has been empowered with the power of a Civil Court under Section 14.

31. Under Section 15, the Commission can take up the following steps after completion of the enquiry. The first step is that on disclosing, the Commission of violation of child rights of a serious nature or contravention of provisions of any law for the time being in force, can recommend the concerned Government or the Authority to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other action which the Commission may deem fit against concerned persons. The second step is to approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such direction, order or writ as the Court may deem it necessary. The third step is to recommend to the concerned Government or authority for grant of such interim relief to the victim or member of the family as the Commission may consider necessary.

32. Since the definition of child rights found in Section 2(b) referred to United Nations Convention, dated 20.11.1989, it is necessary to refer to relevant articles from that Convention. Article 16 of the Convention reads as follows:

Article 16

1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.

2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 28(2) reads as follows:

2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child's human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention.

33. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commission has no right to enquire into the complaint sent by the Petitioner. But, at the same time, it has to be seen whether any immediate purpose will be served by making such direction. Though the Commission has power of the Civil Court for making an enquiry, but after any report made by the Commission, Section 15 sets out the steps the Commission can make to implement its report as noted already. The Commission by itself cannot direct its order to be obeyed by any authority and that either it requires further steps to be taken by the concerned Government or by the Court. In this context, it will be worthwhile to note an interpretation made by the Supreme Court regarding the powers of the National Commission for SC/ST constituted under Article 338 of the Constitution.

34. The question arose whether the Commission which has the power of a Civil Court can order stopping of the promotion process initiated by a Nationalised Bank on the ground that it did not satisfy the constitutional requirements. In that context, the Supreme Court vide its judgment in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC ad ST Employees' Welfare Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported on MANU/SC/1288/1996 : (1996) 6 SCC 606 framed the following question as found in paragraph 3, which reads as follows:

3. The short question that arises for consideration in this matter is whether the Commission had the power to issue a direction in the nature of an interim injunction....

In paragraphs 10 and 11, the following answers were given by the Supreme Court, which reads as follows:

10. Interestingly, here, in Clause (8) of Article 338, the words used are the Commission shall .... have all the powers of the Civil Court trying a suit. But the words all the powers of a Civil Court have to be exercised while investigating any matter referred to in Sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in Sub-clause (b) of Clause 5. All the procedural powers of a civil court are given to the Commission for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into these matters and that too for that limited purpose only. The powers of a civil court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading of Clause (8) of Article 338 of the Constitution.

11. The Commission having not been specifically granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks the authority to issue an order of the type found in the letter dated 4-3-1993. The order itself being bad for want of jurisdiction, all other questions and considerations raised in the appeal are redundant. The High Court was justified in taking the view it did. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.

35. Therefore, if it is seen in the context of the above judgment, if any direction was given as prayed for by the Petitioner, ultimately he may not get any relief except highlighting the grievances projected by him on behalf of his ward in a national forum.