Child Rights Can't Be Made By-Product Of Game Of Politics: Calcutta HC Stays WBCPCR's Notice To Suvendu Adhikari For Tweet Over 3 Yr Old Child

The Calcutta High Court on Friday stayed a show-cause notice issued by the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights against BJP Leader and Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari for posting an allegedly offensive tweet against a three-year-old child.

On November 13, 2022, Adhikari had posted a tweet about the security arrangements made for the birthday party of the concerned three-year-old child purportedly referring to the birthday party of Trinamool All India General Secretary Abhishek Banerjee’s son.

In the tweet, Adhikari used the phrase “Koyla Bhaipo’s son” [coal brother] without naming any individual directly. The contents of the tweet were as follows,

“Grand Celebrations tonight at Taj Bengal !!! Security has been beefed up for the Birthday Party of Koyla Bhaipo’s son. Over 500 Policemen, Bomb Squad & Dog Squad have been deployed to Guard the venue. Door Frame Metal Detectors & Hand-held Metal Detectors are in place.”

Alleging that the tweet had violated the rights of the three-year-old child, an Advisor to the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights issued a show-cause notice to Adhikari on November 18, 2022, on the basis of a complaint filed asking him to attend a hearing on February 7, 2023.

While staying the impugned show-cause notices, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya observed that the identities of the persons mentioned in the tweet have not been disclosed and that any person who is unaware of the politics of Bengal would not be able to comprehend the implications of the tweet in question.

“Although, the tweet mentions the son of “Koyla Bhaipo”, the identities of the persons mentioned in the tweet (suspending any obvious assumptions of the people living in the State) have not been disclosed. The test is not whether a person living in West Bengal and familiar with the politics of the State or even those living outside the State would recognise the identity of the person who is featured in the tweet, but rather whether the tweet, per se, without any political assumptions would point to a particular person and to no one else. Seen by itself it cannot be assumed that the identity of the child has been revealed from the tweet”, the Court underscored.

The Court also noted that the follow-up tweet of Adhiakri mentions “Mamata Police” along with political figures of North Korea and that the tweet does not mention a child anywhere and thus cannot be used to supplement the original tweet to stretch the content to fall within the purview of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (Act) and the West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights Rules, 2012.

Thus, Justice Bhattacharya ruled that the tweet in question is not directed against the child, in specific and that it is not a pre-meditated and a deliberate act to single the child out for violation of any of the child’s rights under the Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Emphasising that the complaint lodged with the Commission is politically motivated, the Court remarked,

“..the complaint is a politically coloured letter where the focus primarily is on the rivalry of the two rival political parties of the State and much less (incidental, at best) on the three-year old son of the person mentioned in the tweet”.

The Court also took into consideration that the show cause noticed dated 18th November, 2022 was issued by an “Advisor” who does not feature in the statutory scheme of the Act. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the Commission was not acting on a ‘valid complaint’ that is a complaint that has a relatable nexus to an offence or a violation of the rights of a child as defined under the Act and thus the Commission clearly acted without jurisdiction.

“Child rights is no child’s play and should be dealt with the seriousness that it deserves. The rights cannot be trivialised or made a by- product of a lob-and-volley game of politics-coloured bickering between two parties. It is evident that the target of the tweet is not the child but somebody else”, the Court added.

Thus, the Court stayed the impugned show cause notices until the matter is heard out on affidavits. The affidavit-in opposition was ordered to be filed within 2 weeks and the reply to it was directed to be filed within 1 week thereafter.

The matter is slated to be heard next after 3 weeks.

Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v. West Bengal Commission for Protection of Child Rights & Ors

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 28

Click Here To Read/Download Order