Child Welfare Committees Constituted Under Juvenile Justice Act Not Competent To Recommend Action Against Institutions: J&K And Ladakh High Court

The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by a school challenging an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Srinagar, which had recommended that action be taken against the institution for allegedly expelling a minor child unlawfully.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while setting aside the impugned order, observed that “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.”

Advocate Aatir Javed Kawoosa appeared for the petitioner.

Background

The proceedings arose from a complaint made by the father of a minor child alleging that his daughter had been unlawfully expelled from the petitioner school. The complaint was received by the Child Welfare Committee, Srinagar, through various authorities, following which the Committee conducted an inquiry into the matter.

Upon completion of the inquiry, the Committee concluded that the child had been illegally expelled and made multiple recommendations, including directions to the Chief Education Officer to ensure the child’s admission in a neighbourhood school and recommendations to the Director, School Education, Kashmir, and the District Magistrate, Srinagar, to take legal action against the school.

Aggrieved by the recommendations directing action against the institution, the school approached the High Court, contending that the Child Welfare Committee had exceeded its jurisdiction under the Juvenile Justice Act.

Court’s Observation

The J&K and Ladakh High Court examined the scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act, particularly Sections 27, 29 and 30, which delineate the constitution, powers and functions of Child Welfare Committees. The Court noted that such Committees are vested with authority only in relation to “children in need of care and protection”.

The Bench analysed the definition of a “child in need of care and protection” under Section 2(14) of the Act and observed that the minor child in the present case did not fall within any of the categories enumerated therein. The Court recorded that the child was living with her father, who was actively pursuing remedies before multiple forums, and there was no material to suggest neglect, abuse or vulnerability as contemplated under the statute.

“It is true that the definition of expression ‘child in need of care and protection’ as given in Section 2(14) of the JJ Act is not exhaustive, yet 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, meaning thereby it should be limited to the same class or nature as the specific illustrations”, the Bench remarked.

The Court further rejected the Committee’s reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, holding that the ratio of the said decision could not be extended to confer jurisdiction in cases where the statutory conditions were not met.

In that particular case, the Bench noted that the Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of sexual abuse of children, especially in Government institutions, and clarified that “the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case 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”.

Addressing the scope of Section 29 of the JJ Act, the Court held that the Child Welfare Committee can only “dispose of the cases for care, protection, treatment, development, rehabilitation of children in need of care and protection as well as to provide for their basic needs and protection”. The statute, the Court held, does not confer any authority upon the Committee to recommend punitive or legal action against institutions.

Consequently, the Court concluded that “the recommendation made by the Committee by virtue of the impugned order is beyond its competence”.

Conclusion

Holding that the Child Welfare Committee had acted beyond its jurisdiction under the Juvenile Justice Act, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the Committee, Srinagar.

Cause Title: Oasis Girls School, Gogji Bagh v. Ms XXX (Minor) (Neutral Citation: 2025:JKLHC SGR:364)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates Aatir Javed Kawoosa, Areeb Javed Kawoosa

Click here to read/download Judgment