Allahabad HC: State Human Rights Commission has no jurisdiction over child custody, remedies are provided under other laws

Allahabad High Court: A petition challenging the orders passed by the Human Rights Commission and seeking a prohibitory order directing the parents of the deceased not to proceed with the case alleged that the State Human Rights Commission (“SHRC”) had exceeded its jurisdiction , particularly with regard to custody of the deceased children, the Division Bench of Rajan Roy and Brij Raj Singh, JJ. Finding that the Commission prima faciemust not have exceeded its jurisdiction in this matter since custody is governed by other specific remedies, has stayed the orders of the SHRC regarding the custody of the children and their production before the Commission. It also clarified that the petitioners must cooperate with the ongoing criminal investigation and that the parents of the deceased may initiate separate custody proceedings in accordance with the law to ensure that they do not interfere with the criminal proceedings.

background

The case revolves around the suspicious death of the daughter-in-law of plaintiffs 1 and 2. The deceased died under mysterious circumstances, which led her parents to suspect that she had committed a crime. They then filed a criminal case against the husband of the deceased, who is the son of plaintiff 1. The husband is currently in custody in connection with the case. The case was registered on charges under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 85 and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023.

Plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the minor children of the deceased and her husband. After the mother's death, the husband filed a criminal case. On November 11, 2024, the parents of the deceased submitted an application to the Director General of Police, UP, expressing concerns over the whereabouts of the children and claiming that they were critical witnesses to the incident surrounding the death of their mother. The application raised concerns about the children's welfare, claimed they were in danger and called for them to be traced and released to the deceased's parents, who were the only ones concerned about their welfare.

A copy of this application was forwarded to the Human Rights Commission, which took note of the matter, although there was no specific allegation of human rights violations. Based on this application, the Human Rights Commission ordered the Investigating Officers (IO) to submit a report on the custody of the children. According to the report, the children were in the care of their grandparents.

On November 14, 2024, the Human Rights Commission issued a detailed order directing the investigating officer to produce the children before the Commission on November 19, 2024. The Commission considered it necessary to record their statements on the issue of custody. It also ordered that custody of the children be taken over immediately by the investigating officer and that they be placed in a children's home pending the hearing before the commission. Subsequent orders were issued reiterating the need to record the children's statements. In particular, the Commission's attention was drawn to the fact that Petitioner 2 was unwell and could not appear before the Commission with the children. As a result, the Commission directed the investigating officer to verify this claim.

Therefore, this petition has been filed to challenge the orders of the Human Rights Commission. The petition also seeks to direct the parents of the deceased not to pursue the case.

Analysis and decision

The court noted that the writ petition raised significant questions about the jurisdiction of the SHRC, particularly with respect to custody of the children. The court noted that although the investigating officer had already recorded the children's statements, the plaintiffs had not objected to further statements since the investigation had been transferred to the criminal investigation department.

The Court, however, objected to the SHRC's orders dated 11/14/2024 and 12/5/2024 ordering the recording of the children's statements before the Commission for custody purposes and held that the Commission may have exceeded its jurisdiction in the matter, as custody is governed by other specific legal remedies.

The court therefore stayed the SHRC's orders regarding custody of the children and their production before the Commission. It also clarified that the petitioners must cooperate with the ongoing criminal investigations and that the private counterparties may initiate separate custody proceedings in accordance with the law to ensure that they do not interfere with the criminal proceedings.

[Prabha Shankar Dwivedi v State of U.P., WRIT – C No. 10623 of 2024, decided on 16-12-2024]

Lawyers who appeared in this case:

Plaintiff's lawyer: Gaurav Mehrotra, Abhineet Jaiswal

Attorney for the defendant: Shikhar Anand, CSC