Case Note & Summary
Background: The writ petition arose from termination of the Chairperson and members of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Jalna by a Government Notification dated 9 March 2021 issued by the Women and Child Development Department, Government of Maharashtra. The petitioners challenged the termination and sought a direction to accept their resignations. Facts: Petitioner no.1 was appointed as Chairperson of CWC Jalna from 6 April 2018, and petitioner nos.2 to 4 were appointed as members from 6 April 2018 for a period of three years. Petitioner no.5 was appointed as a member from 8 March 2019 for three years. On 9 January 2020, the President District Legal Services Authority/Principal District Judge, Jalna conducted a surprise visit to Late Rajkunvar Rameshchandra Bang Shishuvihar Gruh run by Maharashtra Marwadi Charitable Trust, Jalna, and found several irregularities including pathetic, unhygienic, and unhealthy conditions and lack of purchase records. The report led to Suo-moto Public Interest Litigation No.2 of 2020 before the High Court. An FIR was registered on 8 December 2020 against the President, Secretary, and trustees of the child home and also against the petitioners. Petitioner no.1 lodged an FIR against officers of the respondents on 11 December 2020. Petitioners tendered resignations alleging false and concocted FIR without notice or say of CWC; petitioner no.3 resigned on 15 December 2020 and petitioner nos.1, 2, 4, and 5 on 6 February 2021. No action was taken on resignations. The Government then issued the termination notification dated 9 March 2021, which was challenged. Legal Issues: The core issue framed by the High Court was whether termination of the petitioners was illegal and whether directions could be given to accept their resignations. Arguments: Petitioners argued that they were responsible persons, the termination order cited holding of an enquiry but no enquiry was actually conducted, no show cause notice was issued, no witnesses examined, and no cross-examination allowed, violating principles of natural justice. They contended the FIR had no allegations against them and only targeted trustees of the charitable trust. They stated their role in adoption process was limited and they were protected under Section 100 of the JJ Act, 2015 for action taken in good faith. Respondents argued that CWC is a quasi-judicial authority and the State Government has power to terminate after making enquiry. They claimed the department followed all legal provisions under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the Maharashtra Juvenile Justice Rules, 2018. They submitted that CWC Jalna gave three children in foster care without following due procedure including no home study report, incomplete social investigation report, no individual care plan, no order in Form No.21, and no medical report. They also argued violation of Rule 7(10) of Adoption Regulations, 2017 and CARA Guidelines, 2017 regarding counseling before surrender. Court's Analysis: The High Court examined Section 27(7)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which provides for termination of CWC members by the State Government after making an inquiry on grounds of misuse of power, conviction involving moral turpitude, or failure to attend proceedings. It also noted Rule 91(15) of the Maharashtra State Juvenile Justice Rules, 2018, which directs the State Government to have the Commissioner or Divisional Deputy Commissioner hold necessary inquiry and submit report on complaints against Board or Committee members. The Court considered the competing contentions regarding natural justice and procedural compliance in foster care and adoption matters. Decision: The provided judgment excerpt ends before the High Court records its final adjudication and operative directions. Therefore, the final decision on the writ petition is not available in the supplied text.
Headnote
A) Juvenile Justice - Child Welfare Committee - Termination of Members - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Sections 27(7)(i), 27(7)(ii), 27(7)(iii); Maharashtra State Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2018, Rule 91(15) - The State Government may terminate the appointment of any CWC member after making an inquiry if found guilty of misuse of power, convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, or fails to attend proceedings. Petitioners challenged termination alleging no inquiry or natural justice; respondents relied on this statutory power and claimed compliance. The High Court examined these provisions to decide legality of termination (Paras 16-17). B) Natural Justice - Inquiry and Hearing - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 27(7); Maharashtra State Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2018, Rule 91(15) - Petitioners argued termination was without show cause notice, witness examination, cross-examination, or opportunity to explain alleged misuse of power, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Court considered whether the State complied with statutory inquiry requirements before termination (Paras 6, 16-17). C) Foster Care - Procedure for Foster Care - Mandatory Reports and Form - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 27; Maharashtra State Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2018, Rule 91(15) - Respondents alleged CWC Jalna gave three children in foster care without due procedure, including no home study report, incomplete social investigation report, no individual care plan, no order in Form No.21, and no medical report. The Court noted these allegations as central to whether CWC members misused powers (Paras 13-14). D) Adoption - Surrender of Child - Counseling Requirement - Adoption Regulations, 2017, Rule 7(10); CARA Guidelines, 2017 - Rule 7(10) requires efforts to discourage surrender and provide proper counseling to biological parents. Respondents argued CWC Jalna failed to follow prescribed inquiry and bypassed legal provisions for personal gain. The Court considered whether such procedural failures justified termination (Para 14). E) Criminal Liability - Offences under Adoption and Juvenile Justice Acts - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Sections 6(ii), 9(i)(4), 9(i)(5), 9(i)(i-a), 17; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 80 - Petitioners contended the FIR contained no allegations against them and that they were protected under Section 100 JJ Act for good faith. The High Court examined these statutory provisions in the context of alleged misuse of power (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether termination of the petitioners as Chairperson and members of Child Welfare Committee, Jalna was illegal and whether directions can be given to accept their resignations
Law Points
- State Government may terminate Appointments of Child Welfare Committee Members after inquiry under Section 27(7) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act
- 2015
- termination must follow principles of natural justice including notice
- hearing
- and inquiry
- Child Welfare Committee is quasi-judicial authority
- foster care orders require home study report
- social investigation report
- individual care plan
- and order in Form No.21
- Adoption Regulations 2017 Rule 7(10) requires counseling to discourage surrender
- Section 100 of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 provides good faith protection
- offences under Sections 6(ii)
- 9(i)(4)(5)(i)(i-a)
- 17 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
- 1956 and Section 80 of Juvenile Justice Act
- 2015 require specific allegations
