Court Puts Jammu Kashmir Child Rights Commission Selections Under Watch | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has placed the ongoing selection process for the Jammu and Kashmir Commission for Protection of Child Rights (JKSPCR) under judicial scrutiny, directing that appointments to the posts of Chairperson and Members will remain subject to the outcome of a writ petition filed by Dr Shahid Ahmad Ronga, a child-rights scholar and practitioner.

Dr Ronga, represented by Zubair Ahmad, has challenged Advertisement Notice No. SWD-ICPS/55 dated October 18, 2024, alleging that the Social Welfare Department altered legally mandated eligibility criteria and excluded several well-qualified candidates from the shortlist issued for interviews in October 2025. He argues that despite holding a PhD in Law, advanced qualifications, and nearly fifteen years of experience in child protection and juvenile justice, he was left out of the list while applicants with far fewer credentials were included. According to him, he is not alone; other highly trained candidates have also been omitted, raising doubts about whether the process reflects merit or opaque considerations.

The petition states that the authorities unlawfully added “Management” as an eligible discipline, though the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 does not recognise it for these posts. It further alleges that the points-based merit system mentioned in the advertisement was abandoned entirely, with no marks disclosed and no reasons given for rejections, undermining transparency and basic principles of fairness.

After hearing the matter, Justice Rajesh Sekhri issued notice to the respondents and asked them to take the requisite steps within a week. The case has been listed for February 4, 2026. The Court has also clarified that the selection process already under way will be dependent on the final outcome of the petition, ensuring that no irreversible decisions are taken.

Child-rights activists say the case carries implications beyond a single recruitment exercise. These appointments shape the functioning of an institution mandated to monitor rights violations, influence child-centred policy, and represent vulnerable children who rarely have the means to speak for themselves. As the petitioner argues, if the system falters at the very stage of selecting its watchdogs, the credibility of the institution risks being compromised.

The controversy has captured the attention of civil society and professionals working in child protection across the Union Territory. Many see it as a test of institutional accountability and the administration’s willingness to prioritise expertise over expediency. For now, the future of the Commission’s leadership hinges on the Court’s judgment and the government’s commitment to building a more robust framework for child rights in Jammu and Kashmir.