Inquiry and Cooperation: NCPCR vs. WBCPCR Judgment

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a crucial judgment regarding the inquiry and cooperation between the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights (WBCPCR). This ruling sheds light on the important issues surrounding child trafficking and the responsibilities of these commissions. Stay informed about the latest developments in child rights protection. #ChildRights #LegalJudgment #SupremeCourt #Cooperation


  • The inquiry initiated by the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights (WBCPCR) did not commence before the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) started its inquiry into the child trafficking matter in Jalpaiguri.
  • Both the NCPCR and WBCPCR should cooperate and function in harmony while exercising their powers and duties under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005.
  • The language of letters sent by NCPCR to Dr. Rajesh Kumar, ADGP, CID, West Bengal, was considered unnecessarily harsh in the judgment.
  • The NCPCR was justified in proceeding with the inquiry as they were not informed by either the District Magistrate or the WBCPCR about the initiation of an inquiry by the latter.
  • The lack of cooperation and coordination between the NCPCR and the State officials, particularly Dr. Rajesh Kumar, was noted in the analysis.
  • The National Commission’s actions were criticized for potentially prioritizing personal interests over the welfare of children in the child trafficking case.
  • The reporting and document management by both the NCPCR and the WBCPCR were found to be lacking efficiency and could be improved for future cases.
  • The judgment highlighted the need for timely and respectful responses to information requests from Commissions and emphasized the importance of focusing on child welfare above personal or political interests.
  • During an inquiry conducted under Section 13(1)(j), the Commission has wide powers similar to a civil court.
  • The Commission can forward a case to a magistrate, who must treat it as if forwarded under Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
  • Section 15 of the CPCR Act empowers the Commission to make recommendations to the relevant Government or authority for starting proceedings, including prosecution.
  • The recommendations made by the Commission are generally expected to be accepted by the Government.
  • The Commission’s power to make recommendations is recommendatory in nature.
  • Dr. Rajesh Kumar should have furnished the information regarding the case instead of the state authorities.
  • The present ADGP, CID, West Bengal is directed to provide the information to the National Commission and the Juvenile Justice Committee of the High Court of Calcutta within 15 days.
  • Both the State Commission (WBCPCR) and the National Commission were lax in handling the matter.
  • All matters related to the appointment of CWCs and heads of CWCs, excluding criminal case issues, should be monitored by the High Court of Calcutta under a public interest litigation led by the Chairperson of the Juvenile Justice Committee.
  • Cooperation between State Commissions, National Commission, and other relevant State Commissions is essential in cases of child trafficking.

Also Read: Interpretation of Pre-deposit Requirement under SARFAESI Act


  • Registry of the Court to send a copy of the judgment to the Registrar General of the Calcutta High Court.
  • Registrar General of the Calcutta High Court to present the judgment before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench.
  • Bench to handle the matter urgently and establish a mechanism to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
  • Disputes between the NCPCR and WBCPCR partly disposed of under the given terms.
  • Setting up of human rights courts and appointment of special public prosecutors for such courts to be addressed in this appeal and the related Writ Petition.
  • All pending applications related to the dispute between NCPCR and Dr. Rajesh Kumar, ADGP, CID, West Bengal & WBCPCR to be disposed of accordingly.

Also Read: Prabhakar Tewari vs Vikram Singh and Malkhan Singh


Case Number: C.A. No.-007968-007968 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *