Presence Of A Capable Parent Excludes Application Of 'Child In Need Of Care & Protection' Under JJ Act: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a child who is being adequately cared for by her parent cannot be brought within the definition of a “child in need of care and protection” under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while allowing the petition, observed that the Committee's reasoning was fundamentally flawed.

It said that “The reasoning adopted by the Committee in taking cognizance of the complaint and conducting enquiry into the case relating to the respondent child by bringing her within the purview of the definition of 'child in need of care and protection' is wholly misconceived.”

The Court acknowledged that the definition under Section 2(14) of the JJ Act is illustrative but clarified that it must be interpreted on settled principles:

“It is a settled principle of interpretation that if a particular situation is to be brought within the purview of an illustrative definition, the same should be interpreted ejusdem generis.”

Upon examining the statutory clauses, the Court held “A bare perusal of clauses (i) to (xii) of sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the JJ Act would reveal that a child in need of care and protection would mean a child who, for one reason or other, is neglected, exploited or is vulnerable.”

Applying this test, the Court found that the respondent child did not fall within the statutory framework:

“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, goes on to show that the respondent child is neither neglected nor exploited.”

Rejecting reliance placed by the Committee on a Supreme Court judgment dealing with sexual abuse of children, the High Court cautioned against over-extension of precedent:

“The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court… cannot be stretched to tyrannical limits by including even those children in the definition of 'child in need of care and protection' who are being well taken care of by their parents.”

The Court further clarified the limited circumstances in which a child may fall within the definition

“It is only in cases where a child is not having any guardian or parent to look after him or her… or where the parent or guardian is incapacitated or himself subjecting the child to any atrocity, that such child can fall within the definition.”

On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court held that the Committee had acted beyond its statutory powers “In terms of Section 29 of the JJ Act, a Child Welfare Committee does not have jurisdiction to make recommendations for taking action against any institution.”

Concluding that the Committee had assumed powers not vested in it, the Court ruled “The Committee has arrogated to itself jurisdiction which is not vested within it under law and has thereby exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.”

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the impugned order of the Child Welfare Committee, Srinagar, was set aside.

Case-Title: OASIS GIRLS SCHOOL, GOGJI BAGH Vs XXX (MINOR), 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order