Inadequate Explanation Under Section 313 CrPC Cannot Be Foundation For Conviction If Prosecution Fails To Prove Case: Allahabad High Court No-Confidence Motion In Housing Societies Fails If 2/3 Majority Not Met; Fractions In Voting Threshold Cannot Be Rounded Down: Bombay High Court Successor Rent Controller Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Act As Appellate Court Under Review Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Restores Eviction Order Article 21 Overrides PMLA Section 45 Rigors In Cases Of Unduly Long Incarceration Without Trial: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To SSC Scam ‘Middleman’ Unregistered Family Partition Deed Recording Past Oral Arrangement Doesn't Require Compulsory Registration: Gujarat High Court Private Banks Acting As Authorised Dealers Under FEMA Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction; Can Refuse Transactions For 'Sanctions-Related' Concerns: Gauhati High Court Non-Examination Of Investigating Officer Not Fatal To Prosecution Case If Eyewitness Testimony Is Credible & Trustworthy: Jharkhand High Court Mere Denial Of Signature Insufficient When Execution Is Proved Through Endorsements: Karnataka High Court Restores Specific Performance Decree Sectarianism Claims Can't Discredit Reliable Testimony Of Child Sexual Abuse Victim: Kerala High Court Upholds Madrassa Teacher's Conviction State Must Prove Specific 'Public Interest' To Exempt Projects From Social Impact Assessment Under Section 10A Land Acquisition Act: Telangana High Court Or 2 Rule 2 CPC |Failure To Seek Specific Performance In Earlier Injunction Suit Bars Subsequent Claim; Readiness & Willingness Must Be Continuous: Madras High Court Exoneration In Departmental Proceedings Does Not Result In Automatic Discharge In Criminal Case: Orissa High Court History Sheet Can Be Opened On 'Reasonable Belief' Even Without Conviction, But Must Be Reviewed After 7 Years Of Good Conduct: Rajasthan High Court

Karnataka High Court Upholds of Selection Process of Chairman of  Child Rights Commission

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the High Court of Karnataka, presided over by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, upheld the appointment of the fifth respondent as Chairperson of the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, dismissing a writ petition that challenged the selection process.

The Court’s decision emphasized the autonomy and integrity of the selection process, as it observed, “The discretion available to this Court is exercisable only in certain circumstances, qua challenge to an appointment made by the Selection Committee, which would be arbitrariness and such arbitrariness should be palpable or demonstrable.” This statement became a focal point in the Court’s reasoning, highlighting the restrained approach taken by the judiciary in matters of public employment selection.

The petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, called into question the procedures followed in the appointment of the fifth respondent, arguing that the petitioner held superior qualifications and experience in child rights advocacy. However, the Court found no merit in the allegations, stating that the Selection Committee’s decision, formed under the statutory framework of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, and the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights Rules, 2010, was not tainted by arbitrariness or statutory violation.

The Court also referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, to reinforce its stance on judicial non-interference in the selection process. The judgment cited states, “The law on the scope and extent of judicial review of a selection process and results thereof, may be understood on consideration of the following case law.”

Date of decision:18 november 2023

Sri ashok d. Sanadi VS  The chief secretary government of karnataka

Latest Legal News