STATE OF KERALA Vs. JASMINE ALEX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Kerala and the Secretary to the Government in the Department of Social Justice have filed this appeal being aggrieved by certain observations made by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 17.8.2017 passed in W.P(C). No.1994 of 2017. The first respondent in this appeal is the writ petitioner. Rest of the respondents are the respondents to the writ petition. There are other writ appeals arising from the said judgment, which have been filed or which are to be filed. But for the moment, we are not concerned, nor are we dealing with those appeals. Nothing said in this order would in any manner prejudice the contentions raised in those appeals.

(2.) We heard learned Advocate General in support of this appeal and Sri. Santhosh Mathew learned counsel for the writ petitioner/first respondent and with their consent we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.

(3.) As required by the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act , 2005 ('the Act' for short), the Central Rules and the State Rules framed thereunder, the State had to constitute a State Commission for protection of child rights as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act. Section 17(2) thereof enumerates the members of the said State Commission. The constitution would be of seven persons including the Chairperson. Apart from the Chairman, who is to be a person of eminence and has done outstanding work for promoting the welfare of children, the other six members are to be persons of eminence, ability, integrity, standing and experience in various fields such as (i) education; (ii)Child health, care, welfare or child development; (iii) Juvenile justice or care of neglected or marginalised children or children with disabilities; (iv) elimination of child labour or child in distress; (v)child psychology or sociology; (vi) laws relating to children. An overall view of the provision would detail the specific qualifications of the eminent persons who have to be selected. Out of the above, two shall be women. We need not delve as to why this is essential. By this, we mean persons of eminence specialising in the fields aforesaid because they are entrusted with the duty of child care and would be dealing with rights of children. This Body, ie., the State Commission, has to be a group of persons with special knowledge as noted above and persons of eminence because they have to look after the interest of the seedlings that would grow into future generation. It is not an easy task and commoners, without being derogative, are not expected to be included in the said Commission. The legislature has carefully chosen the expressions and neither the executive nor the Courts can withdraw the vitality and life from those words. What is required of the executive and the courts is to rely upon the said guiding principles as laid down in sub section (2) of Section 17 of the Act and the Rules framed in furtherance thereof and to secure the objective sought to be achieved in matter of such selection. This is all the more necessary if we refer to Section 13 of the Act, which enumerates the functions of the Commission. This Commission had the power to make enquiries and act as a Civil Court as well, which can be seen from section 14(2) of the Act.