In a striking rebuke, the Supreme Court rejected the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights’ (NCPCR) petition against the State of Jharkhand, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh, in a September 24 order, emphasized that Article 32 is designed for citizens to protect their fundamental rights—not for statutory bodies to target state governments or Union Territories.
The Court pointed out the contradiction in NCPCR’s approach, stating that the Commission, as a statutory body, cannot use Article 32 to seek enforcement of fundamental rights or demand directions from the Court to fulfill its statutory duties. The petition sought vague reliefs, including a Supreme Court-monitored probe into illegal child trade in Jharkhand and the formation of Special Investigation Teams across all states. The case originated from a 2018 newspaper report about alleged illegal child trafficking involving an NGO in Jharkhand, which prompted the NCPCR to act after being dissatisfied with the state’s response.
The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the plea, terming the reliefs “vague and omnibus.” It stressed that NCPCR’s approach was inappropriate, reaffirming that such statutory bodies have no standing to file petitions under Article 32. Nonetheless, the Court did clarify that NCPCR retains the authority to take lawful measures to protect children from illegal trafficking.
This is the latest in a series of challenges to NCPCR’s role, with the Court recently questioning the Commission’s standing in a case under the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act.