Human Rights Commission's Jurisdiction In Child Custody Matters: Allahabad HC To Examine
The Allahabad High Court gave liberty to a deceased woman’s parents to initiate proceedings as per law regarding the issue of custody of their grandchildren and also observed that the Human Rights Commission, prima facie, may not have jurisdiction so far as custody of children is concerned.
The High Court also observed that the Commission appeared to have exceeded its jurisdiction while making observations in the earlier orders saying that the statement of the children was necessary to be recorded before the Commission for the purposes of custody.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Brij Raj Singh and Justice Rajan Roy said, “The Commission, prima facie, may not have jurisdiction so far as custody of children is concerned, as there are specific remedies prescribed in this regard in other statutes.”
Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra represented the Petitioners while CSC Shikhar Anand represented the Respondent.
The daughter-in-law of the petitioners, who was the daughter of the opposite parties died in the year 2024. As per the private opposite parties, she died in mysterious circumstances, which led to the initiation of a criminal case against the son-in-law of the private opposite parties i.e. son of the petitioner no. 1, who is at present lodged in jail. A criminal case under Sections 103 (1), 115 (2), 852 and 351 (2) BNS, 2023 was lodged by the opposite party and is pending investigation.
The two petitioners (petitioner no.3 & 4), are the children born of the wedlock of the deceased- daughter/daughter-in-law of the private parties herein and the son/son-in-law. An application was filed by the daughter’s father referring to the aforesaid criminal case and the two minor children i.e. petitioner nos. 3 and 4 herein, who were important witnesses of the incident involving the death of their mother. In the application, it was alleged that the whereabouts of the children were not known. It was stated therein that the applicants and his wife were the only persons, who cared about their welfare and the life of the children was in danger. A request was made for tracing out the children and handing them over to their maternal grandparents. A copy was also sent to the Chairman of Human Rights Commission.
The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there was no allegation of violation of any human right in this application yet, based on this copy received by the Human Rights Commission, Member of the Commission took cognizance of the matter and an order was passed requisitioning a report from the Investigating Officer regarding the aforesaid criminal case, who submitted a report to the effect that the two minor children were in custody of the son’s father and a cousin.
Thereafter, a direction was issued to the Investigating Officer to produce the minor children before the Commission as it was necessary to record their statements in connection with their custody with a further direction that custody of the children should be taken immediately by the Investigating Officerand they should be lodged in a Child Care Home. Thereafter, certain other orders were also passed. The Bench noticed that the only difference in these orders was that instead of the earlier order for lodging them in Child Care Home, the grandparents were ordered to produce the children. Another order was passed noticing the ill health of petitioner no. 2 on account of which he could not appear before the Commission with the children and direction was issued to the I.O. to get this fact verified. It was in such circumstances, that the present petitioners approached the High Court challenging the aforesaid orders and also seeking a writ of prohibition directing the opposite parties not to proceed with the case.
The Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the issues about custody etc. are to be seen by the appropriate court/forum as prescribed in law such as the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the Commission for Protection of Children Rights Act, 2005, Juvenile Justice Act etc. The meaning of Human Rights as given in section 2 (d) and function as prescribed in Section 12 cannot be stretched to include issues about custody of minor children, as specific provisions are contained in this regard in various other statutes and special courts have jurisdiction in this regard, as it is not one of the functions to be performed by the State Human Rights Commission.
The Bench found that important questions pertaining to the jurisdiction of the State Human Rights Commission had been raised in this writ petition in the context of custody of the children etc.
It was observed that as far as the apprehension of the private opposite parties herein with regard to the children being witnesses was concerned, the Investigating Officer had already recorded their statements once. However, the Counsel for the opposite party had submitted that the investigation has been transferred to the Crime Branch of District Police and Investigating Officer wants to record their statements further. On this aspect, the Bench observed that it is always open for him to take a decision in the matter and the petitioners will not create any hindrance in this regard.
However, the Bench also added, “...but so far as the question of custody is concerned, prima facie, at least, at this stage we find that State Human Rights Commission appears have exceeded its jurisdiction while making observations in the order dated 14.11.2024 and 5.12.2024 that the statement of the children was necessary to be recorded before the Commission for the purposes of custody and seeing their attendance for the said purpose. The Commission, prima facie, may not have jurisdiction so far as custody of children is concerned, as there are specific remedies prescribed in this regard in other statutes.”
The Bench stayed the orders dated 14.11.2024 and 5.12.2024 in so far as the Commission proposed to proceed in the matter with regard to custody of the minor children and their production before it in this regard.
The Bench further added, “We may also make it clear that it is open for the Investigating Officer to take all steps necessary to investigate the criminal case and the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 shall co-operate in the same. So far as the issue of custody is concerned, private opposite parties are at liberty to initiate such proceedings as they may be advised to do, as per law, as also for a fair investigation in the criminal case, if required.”
Cause Title: Prabha Shankar Dwivedi And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. Human Rights Commission Thru. Chairman Maanav (Case No.: WRIT - C No. - 10623 of 2024)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Gaurav Mehrotra, Abhineet Jaiswal
Respondent: C.S.C. Shikhar Anand
