The Delhi High Court on Wednesday expressed stern displeasure and criticized the Delhi government for its continued failure to appoint a chairperson and members to the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR). Despite previous assurances to the court that the vacancies would be filled by mid-April, the Commission has remained non-functional for three years, a situation the court described as “dangerous” if deliberate.
The matter pertains to the long-standing vacancies in the DCPCR, a statutory body established to safeguard child rights in the national capital. The Commission has been largely defunct since 2023, with some positions vacant for over three years. During a hearing on February 18, the Delhi government had filed an affidavit stating that the appointment process would likely be concluded by the second week of April. However, as of the latest hearing, no appointments have been made, prompting the court to intervene.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia pulled up the government for failing to respect its own statements made before the court. The bench noted that the DCPCR is a product of legislative enactment rather than a mere judicial order, yet the authorities were failing to follow the legislature’s mandate.
“The kind of apathy, at least we don’t find anywhere else. If it is deliberate, it is more dangerous,” the bench observed. “For three years, this Commission is non-functional. See the functions of this Commission.”
The court further highlighted the irony of enacting laws without ensuring their implementation. “While enacting the law, you blow trumpets. The Juvenile Justice Act was enacted when? Eleven years and we are still struggling to get it implemented. You will not form the Child Welfare Committee. You will not have a selection committee,” the bench added.
The counsel representing the Delhi government admitted there were “no excuses” for the lapse but sought an additional six weeks to finalize the appointments. The counsel informed the court that the relevant file is currently pending with the “highest authority” for a final decision and that a formal application for a time extension had been filed.
The court, however, remained skeptical of the repeated requests for more time. “Despite such orders passed by us… who will be answerable for such delay now? We don’t want to use harsher words. There is no defence available,” the bench remarked. Addressing the counsel directly, the court stated, “Since October 2024, you are asking (for time). Don’t push us against the wall like this.”
Expressing a loss of words over the authorities’ failure to ensure the Commission’s functionality, the court advanced the next hearing date from July 3 to May 22. The bench directed the government counsel to take immediate steps to bring the application for an extension of time onto the record for formal consideration.
The court reiterated its stance from the February hearing, where it had warned that the delay would be “viewed seriously” if the mid-April deadline was not met, noting that the government had previously attempted to “justify” a delay of over two and a half years.
