Prosecution Cannot Fill Gaps In Circumstantial Evidence Merely Because Delivery Occurred Inside Private Bathroom: Kerala High Court Acquits Mother In Infanticide Case Mere Presence And Possession Of Stick Cannot Establish Common Intention To Commit Murder Without Proof Of Functional Relationship: Allahabad High Court Gravity Of Offence Cannot Be Perpetual Bar To Remission: Delhi High Court Consensual Relationship Spanning Years Cannot Be Turned Into Rape Charge Merely Because Stock Market Investments Soured: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail PMLA | Properties Acquired Before Predicate Offence Can Be Attached As 'Equivalent Value' Of Proceeds Of Crime: Kerala High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not A Panacea For Deep-Seated Civil Controversies; Title Disputes Must Be Decided By Civil Courts: Madras High Court Mere Request For Agreement In Reply To Legal Notice Cannot Be Construed As Acknowledgment Of Debt To Save Limitation: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orissa High Court Clarifies Exclusion Of Time Under Limitation Act Applies To Election Appeals Under Gram Panchayats Act Despite Statute Being Self-Contained Code Filing Of Complaint After Offer Of Possession Indicates Unit Was Incomplete; Purely Factual Disputes Don't Raise Substantial Question Of Law: Punjab & Haryana HC Absence Of Corroborative Medical Evidence Cannot Override Victim's Statement Under BNSS In Rape And POCSO Cases: Allahabad High Court Victim Has Absolute Right To Appeal Against Acquittal Under Section 372 CrPC, Need Not Seek Special Leave Under Section 378(4): Punjab & Haryana High Court 'MODERN MANAGERS NEED NOT HIRE OR FIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM WORKMAN DEFINITION': Bombay 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