Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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