Kerala High Court Emphasises Importance Of Careful Selection Of CWC Members Who Have Actively Been Involved With Issues Of Children In Past

This requirement is mandated under Section 27(4) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 

The Court said that the experience of seven years can be counted only if the person was actively involved in measures relating to child welfare as a predominant object and not as a peripheral requirement. The Court added that the words “actively involved” would exclude passive involvement of being present but not engaging meaningfully.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu emphasized that such a qualification is essential considering the duties of the members of the Committee.

“...we again emphasise the need to carefully select members of the Child Welfare Committee. These Committees are a crucial component for implementing the Juvenile Justice Act. The purpose of establishing the Child Welfare Committee and its functions requires its members to adopt a sensitive approach. The members must have a deep understanding of the matters concerning children. Therefore, a person actively involved in the health, education and welfare activities of children through his experience can make a difference in functioning of the Committee. Conversely, a person lacking ground level experience may hinder the effective functioning of the Committee."

The court observed that the Juvenile Justice Act is more than a legal framework; it is a "protective mechanism for vulnerable children". It underscored that CWC members make critical decisions on shelter, adoption, foster care, and repatriation—decisions that shape young lives.

"Therefore, the Selection Authority must give primacy to those candidates with genuine, direct experience in child protection work—whether through social work, psychology, rehabilitation programs, or law enforcement. Only then can the Child Welfare Committees function with the empathy, insight, and competence to protect and support children in need," the court said.

The Court made these observations while considering a challenge against the appointment of a member to the Kollam Child Welfare Committee. The Appellant–C. Krishnankutty Nair had been placed as No.1 on the waiting list of CWC members after the recommendations were made to the available posts. The appellant argued that one of the appointees, Alan M. Alexander did not have the requisite qualification of seven years' experience of active involvement with the issues pertaining to children.

The Court noted that the main qualification of the appointee was that he was a physiotherapist by profession with experience of more than 24 years and has worked as Director of Operations in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh for child development projects under Limrah Health Connection Pvt. Ltd. The Court said that in the Memorandum of Association of Limrah Health, it can be seen that its main objects are health services, medical tourism, health care research activity, rural health care for mass, health education and others and it has no work related to planning and administering child welfare activities. The Court observed that the company can only undertake only those activities mentioned in the Memorandum of Association.

It observed that there were "absolutely no details" on record regarding the "active work" done by Alexander which were at least expected when the Appellant had challenged the order. It noted that the only thing that was on record in respect of Alexander was that he is a Physiotherapist by profession, and he is one of the two directors of one Limrah Health.

The Court said that by selecting Alan, the Selection Committee "glossed over" the necessity of being "actively involved" in the activities. It observed that the JJ Act of 2015 emphasizes the enhanced role of the Child Welfare Committees and confers various powers and duties.

"It is to perform these duties effectively that actual involvement on the part of the members is insisted upon. Unfortunately, the Selection Committee has not scrutinised whether Respondent No. 8 has the requisite experience as mandated under the Act of 2015 and the Rules of 2017. While adopting a pedantic approach, the reason for prescribing actual involvement is lost sight of," the court said. 

The Court clarified that it can interfere in the Selection process as the appointee does not have requisite experience and there is no question of giving deference to the wisdom of the Selection Committee. The court seeing that the appellant has necessary qualifications including active involvement in matters related to children, set aside the appointment of Alan and directed CWC Kollam to issue necessary orders to appoint the appellant.

It thus allowed the appeal.

Case No: WA 1737 of 2024

Case Title: C. Krishnankutty Nair v Principal Secretary and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 121