Facts of the Case

This case pertains to an appeal regarding the appointment of Respondent No. 8, Mr. A, as a member of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) of Kollam District, Kerala. The Appellant, C. Krishnankutty Nair, who had applied for the same position, challenged the appointment by filing a writ petition. He contended that Respondent No. 8 lacked the requisite experience as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Kerala Rules of 2017, particularly the mandatory seven years of active involvement in child welfare activities. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, prompting the Appellant to file an appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

Contention of the Petitioner (Appellant)

The Appellant argued that the appointment of Mr. A should be set aside, as he lacked the necessary qualifications outlined in Section 27(4) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Appellant emphasized that Respondent No. 8 did not possess the required seven years of experience in child welfare activities, a key eligibility criterion. According to the Appellant, Respondent No. 8’s work experience in medical tourism, which primarily focused on health-related services, did not qualify as active involvement in child welfare. The Appellant argued that given his own qualifications, including more than seven years of active experience in child welfare, he should have been appointed instead.

Contention of the Respondent

Respondent No. 8, Mr. A, defended his appointment, asserting that his experience involved work related to child development projects. He claimed that his experience met the statutory requirements of active involvement in child welfare activities. He further highlighted his 24 years of experience as a physiotherapist and his extensive work in child development programs across Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. Respondent No. 8 argued that the Selection Committee had thoroughly evaluated all candidates and concluded that he was suitably qualified for the position. The Kerala State, in its counter affidavit, supported his appointment, maintaining that the selection process was fair, and the committee found Respondent No. 8 to be the most suitable candidate.

Court’s Observation

The Kerala High Court observed that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 mandates that members of the Child Welfare Committee must have a degree in certain fields (such as social work, law, child psychology, etc.) and be actively involved in child welfare activities for a minimum of seven years. The Court underscored that the phrase “actively involved” implies direct, meaningful engagement in child welfare work, excluding peripheral or passive roles. The Court stressed that child welfare activities should be the predominant focus of the applicant’s experience.

The Court further noted that the objective of the Child Welfare Committee is to protect vulnerable children, and its members must possess the necessary empathy, understanding, and qualifications to make decisions about children’s care, including issues like adoption, rehabilitation, and child protection. The Court emphasized that such appointments should prioritize candidates with genuine, ground-level experience in child welfare, rather than those with peripheral experience in health or other sectors.

Court’s Decision

The Kerala High Court ultimately upheld the appointment of Mr. A as a member of the Child Welfare Committee of Kollam District. However, the Court made significant observations about the selection process and the qualifications required for members of the CWC. It clarified that the “active involvement” in child welfare, as mandated by the Juvenile Justice Act and the Kerala Rules, must involve substantial, direct engagement with issues directly affecting children, not just peripheral roles in sectors like health or general welfare. The Court also underscored that the role of CWC members is critical in the juvenile justice system, as they make decisions that shape the future of children in need of protection and care. Thus, the Court emphasized the importance of appointing individuals with the requisite experience in child protection, child psychology, or social work, which directly impacts the Committee’s effectiveness.

In conclusion, while the Court did not interfere with the appointment of Respondent No. 8, it reiterated the necessity of thorough and careful selection of CWC members, ensuring that they have the right qualifications and experience to fulfil their responsibilities in safeguarding children.

Credits: Deeksha Rai