Child Welfare Committees Have No Power To Recommend Action Against Schools Under Juvenile Justice Act: J&K&L High Court

Justice Sanjay Dhar made it clear that under Section 29 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the role of the Committee is strictly confined to the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of children in need of care and protection, and that any recommendation beyond this statutory framework is ultra vires and without jurisdiction.

This observation came in a criminal revision petition filed by Oasis Girls School challenging an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Srinagar. By the impugned order, the Committee had not only concluded that a minor child had been illegally expelled from the petitioner school but had also gone a step further to recommend that the Director School Education, Kashmir, and the District Magistrate, Srinagar, initiate appropriate legal action against the school.

Challenging this order, the petitioner school through counsel Aatir Javed Kawoosa & Areeb Javed Kawoosa contended that the Child Welfare Committee lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint altogether, as the child neither qualified as a “child in conflict with law” nor as a “child in need of care and protection” under the Juvenile Justice Act. It was argued that the Committee had exceeded its statutory mandate and that its recommendation for punitive action against the school was unknown to law.

Justice Dhar, after examining the statutory scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act, undertook a detailed analysis of Sections 27, 29 and 30 of the Act, which govern the constitution, powers, and functions of Child Welfare Committees. The Court observed that CWCs are constituted solely to exercise powers and discharge duties in relation to children in need of care and protection, and that their authority is strictly circumscribed by the statute.

The Court then examined the definition of a “child in need of care and protection” under Section 2(14) of the JJ Act, noting that the provision enumerates specific categories of vulnerable children, such as those who are homeless, abandoned, abused, exploited, neglected, or whose parents are unfit or incapacitated.

Referring to a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Court noted that the provision broadly covers two categories ie children without guardians or homes, and children who, despite having guardians, are subjected to neglect or atrocity.

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court categorically held that the minor child did not fall within any of the clauses of Section 2(14). The child was neither homeless nor abandoned, was not a victim of abuse or exploitation, and was being actively cared for by her father, who had pursued her cause before multiple forums, the court pointed out.

Rejecting the Committee's reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Exploitation of Children in Orphanage in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, Justice Dhar observed that although the definition of “child in need of care and protection” is illustrative and not exhaustive, it cannot be expanded indiscriminately. The Court emphasised that any such interpretation must follow the principle of ejusdem generis, meaning that only situations of the same nature as those enumerated in the statute can be included.

In a significant observation, the Court held,

“A child like the respondent, who has father to look after and, in fact, her father has projected her cause not only before the Committee but before several other fora, which goes on to show that the respondent child is neither neglected nor exploited… by no stretch of reasoning can be termed to be a child in need of care and protection.”

The Court further clarified that the Supreme Court's observations in the orphanage exploitation case were made in the context of sexual abuse of children in institutional care and could not be stretched “to tyrannical limits” so as to include children who are otherwise being well taken care of by their parents.

Coming to the core issue of the Committee's powers, Justice Dhar held that Section 29 of the JJ Act does not empower a Child Welfare Committee to recommend or initiate action against institutions, observing that its mandate is confined to matters concerning the welfare and rehabilitation of children in need of care and protection.

The Court observed,

“A Child Welfare Committee does not have jurisdiction to make recommendations for taking action against any institution. It has only the authority to dispose of the cases for care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of children in need of care and protection.”

Holding that the Committee had arrogated to itself a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, the High Court concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the order passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Srinagar, was set aside in its entirety.

APPEARANCES:

For Petitioners: Mr. Aatir Javed Kawoosa, Advocate, with Mr. Areeb Javed Kawoosa, Advocate.

Case Title: Oasis Girls School Vs XXX

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment