High Court bins petition challenging appointment of child rights panel chief

K Naganna Gowda was appointed as chairman of the commission on October 21, 2022.

The high court has dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of K Naganna Gowda as chairman of the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (KSCPCR).

The court said that it could not step into the shoes of the selection committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded by the committee were not correspond to their performance in the test.

Gowda was appointed as chairman of the commission on October 21, 2022.

The petitioner Ashok D Sanadi, also an aspirant for the post, claimed that Gowda’s selection was based on political consideration as he was close to the then-ruling BJP government.

It was further argued that he as a practising advocate had been involved in cases concerning juvenile justice appearing before the Juvenile Justice Board from 2009 to 2017, as one of the panel counsels of the District Legal Services Authority.

On the other hand, Gowda claimed that he had severed links with the BJP in 2020 and added that he too was involved in the cause of child rights for the past several years.

Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the high court would not sit in the armchair of experts and decide who is better qualified in matters, including experience, and obliterate an appointment made by the selection committee.

“While exercising the power of judicial review, (court) cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee were not corresponding to their performance in the test,” the court said.

The court also noted that Gowda had resigned from the BJP on September 1, 2020, a good 15 months before the notification inviting applications.

“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. The other would be that the selection and appointment should suffer from certain statutory arbitrariness. I do not find any of the two circumstances existing in the challenge to the appointment in question,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.