Indefinite debarment from future child-welfare engagements is impermissible and violates proportionality.

The petitioner was appointed in 2020 as a Member of the Child Welfare Committee, Buxar, for a three-year term and was deputed for training at Chanakya National Law University, Patna.

After an incident involving corporal punishment at the Juvenile Care Home, Buxar, an enquiry was conducted by the District Magistrate, following which certain officials were removed and a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner.

The petitioner submitted his reply.

Subsequently, while considering his candidature for appointment to the Juvenile Justice Board, the Selection Committee, in its 14th meeting dated 7 November 2023, relied upon the District Magistrate’s enquiry report and decided to discharge him from his position and debar him from future engagement in any child-welfare scheme.

Whether an executive or statutory authority may debar the petitioner from future engagement in any child-welfare scheme for an indefinite or unlimited period.

Whether the impugned debarment was sustainable despite the petitioner’s contention that the relevant enquiry report and final decision were not communicated to him and that he was not given an opportunity to respond to the subsequent enquiry findings.

The Court considered the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, including Section 27(1)(7), under which the State relied upon the Selection Committee’s power to take action against members of Child Welfare Committees, and Section 27(10), pursuant to which the enquiry was stated to have been directed.

The Court applied the settled principle that blacklisting or debarment must be for a specified and definite period and cannot operate indefinitely, since indefinite debarment may amount to “civil death,” offend Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and violate proportionality.

Relying on M/s Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project, BSNL & Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 731, and M/s Mars Developers and Suppliers v. State of Odisha, SLP (C) No. 7861 of 2023, the Court held that debarment, though permissible as a disciplinary measure, cannot be imposed for an indefinite period.

The Court noted the State’s contention that the petitioner had been given an opportunity during the district-level enquiries and that the Selection Committee had acted on the District Magistrate’s recommendation under the Juvenile Justice framework.

However, the decisive question was the duration and legal effect of the debarment.

The direction excluding the petitioner from any future engagement in any child-welfare scheme imposed no time limit and was therefore indefinite.

Applying the principles in Kulja Industries and Mars Developers, the Court held that such an unlimited prohibition was disproportionate and legally impermissible, irrespective of the authority’s power to take disciplinary action or the petitioner’s alleged misconduct.

The impugned decision dated 7 November 2023 was consequently set aside to the extent that it debarred the petitioner from future engagement in any child-welfare scheme.

The respondents were directed not to debar the petitioner from participating in future engagements relating to child-related schemes, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.