Today, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a Writ Petition filed by the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) challenging the decision of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi to cease funding for the DCPCR and launching an inquiry and audit against the commission.

The Bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra at the outset asked the Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for the Commission to approach the High Court. The CJI stated, "Mr. Sankaranarayanan, please go to the High Court. Why should we entertain a petition under Article 32 over here?".

Responding, the Senior Advocate submitted, "I understand, but the reason why this is a little different from the other cases that have come so far is because there is a Commission and its money has been frozen." Continuing he stated, "Now let me tell you what is likely to happen if I go to the Delhi High Court, we are on the last day here and have a week in Delhi High Court before the winter vacations. Now if I go to the Delhi High Court and if they issue notice, it goes to January, some Judgement comes and after that, I am back here."

Sankaranarayanan further stated, "Every single one of these Delhi matters, this is what has happened, it has always been your verdict." However refusing to entertain, the CJI remarked, "What is happening is that in every dispute, all and sundry involving LG is coming here. We have entertained some dealing with broader constitutional issues, now this must go to the High Court."

Referring to the prayers made, the CJI further remarked, "DCPCR says that... well stop conducting an audit, don't freeze our funds." Sankaranarayanan further clarified and stated, "You conduct whatever you want but don't freeze the money. How can 6 million children of the state be told that not a penny is going to come to the Commission?"

However, refusing to entertain, CJI states, "You may be right, but go to the High Court. That is why the High Court is there. Why are you bucking the Delhi High Court? You know everything between the Delhi Government and the Lieutenant Governor is coming here every 2 days. Yesterday, the bus marshall scheme was discontinued and we got a Petition under Article 32."

The Counsel further stated, "There isn't any bucking of the Delhi High Court. They are freezing everything. What the Delhi government is doing is between two of them but I am an independent commission. I am required by the Parliament to function independently."

The Court accordingly in its order observed, "Considering the nature of grievance which is being addressed before this Court by Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights, we are of the considered view that a Petition under Article 226 should be the appropriate remedy. The learned Senior Counsel however submits that the Petition was filed before this Court on 28th November 2023, and since then the tenure of the Members and Chairperson has ended on 1 December 2023 as a result of which a fresh Petition cannot be instituted at this point of time before the High Court."

The Court further ordered, "Based on the above submissions, we direct the Registry to transfer these proceedings to the High Court of Delhi which shall be renumbered as a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Subject to the grant of the above liberty, the Petition is disposed of."

Through the Advocate-on-Record Talha Abdul Rahman, the Writ Petition contended that the Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi has ceased funding to the Commission. DCPCR asserted that the Commission requires sufficient funds to perform its functions with effectiveness and efficiency and any effort to withhold or diminish the Commission's funds pending the outcome of an inquiry is deemed a breach of its autonomy and poses a threat to its survival.

"The Commission cannot perform its duties without the necessary resources and staff. Effectively, without repealing the Act, the Act is rendered unenforceable. Particularly, without funding, Petitioner No.1 will not be able to perform its statutory functions also under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (Section 109) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (POCSO Act, Section 44)", states the Petition.

DCPCR highlighted that the cessation of funds will undermine the Commission's ability to monitor Children's Homes, negatively impacting the implementation of care mandated by the Act. Further, on the aspect of audits, DCPCR stated, "Any person is aggrieved by any order passed by the Commission under the CPCR Act, 2005, the remedy lies in approaching the courts and not to deny funding, ensuring it suffocates, and to order an inquiry and special audit against the Commission itself, by raking up stale instances of alleged financial oversight."

Cause Title: Delhi Commission For Protection Of Child Rights And Anr. v. Lieutenant Governor, Nct Of Delhi And Ors

Chief Justice DY ChandrachudJustice JB PardiwalaJustice Manoj MisraDelhi Commission for Protection of Child RightsNCT of Delhi

Ramey Krishan Rana