Srinagar, Oct 21: The expiry of the extended tenure of Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) and Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) in Jammu and Kashmir, without their replacements being constituted, has raised concerns over the continuity of statutory child-protection and juvenile-justice mechanisms in the Union Territory.

An official communication issued by the Directorate of Mission Vatsalya on October 13 acknowledged that the six-month extension granted to the existing chairpersons and members had expired that day, while the new committees and boards were yet to be constituted.
The communication, addressed to all District Child Protection Officers (DCPOs), directs them to take custody of official files, records, registers and other documents of the outgoing bodies. It also outlines interim arrangements to maintain essential functions until fresh appointments are made.
The development has drawn criticism from Peoples Conference chairman Sajad Gani Lone, who accused the elected government of failing to ensure continuity in institutions responsible for protecting vulnerable children and dealing with juveniles in conflict with the law.
Lone questioned how urgent cases involving children requiring care, protection or intervention in legal proceedings would be handled in the absence of duly constituted statutory bodies.
Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 27 provides for Child Welfare Committees in every district, while Section 4 provides for Juvenile Justice Boards. The CWCs deal with children in need of care and protection, whereas JJBs handle cases involving children alleged to have come into conflict with the law.
According to the Mission Vatsalya communication, matters concerning children in need of care and protection will be handled by the concerned Protection Officers and supporting staff under the supervision of the DCPOs during the interim period.
For cases involving children in conflict with the law, Principal Magistrates of the JJBs will be assisted by Legal-cum-Probation Officers and other staff of the respective District Child Protection Units to facilitate essential functions.
The order also directs district officials to ensure the systematic transfer, verification, preservation and safe custody of records, maintain confidentiality and submit compliance reports.
However, questions remain over whether these interim arrangements can ensure the exercise of all statutory powers ordinarily vested in the CWCs and JJBs. The communication does not specify a timeline for constituting the new bodies.
Lone argued that administrative arrangements cannot automatically substitute for statutory institutions empowered to make decisions concerning children's protection and legal proceedings. He also criticised the government's reliance on outsourced personnel in the child-protection system, questioning their ability to intervene effectively when children's rights are at stake.
He further raised concerns over the continued non-functioning of the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, alleging that it remained dysfunctional despite the recruitment process having been advertised more than a year ago.
The controversy has also brought the appointment process under scrutiny, with questions over why fresh appointments were not completed before the existing members' extended tenure expired.
While the October 13 communication confirms that the new bodies had not been constituted by that date, it does not explain the reasons for the delay or indicate when the process will be completed.
The immediate challenge is to ensure that children requiring urgent protection receive timely assistance and that cases involving juveniles continue to be handled in accordance with the law.
The government has directed district officials to maintain continuity in essential functions pending fresh appointments. However, the scope of their interim authority and the timeline for restoring the statutory bodies remain key concerns.