Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010

Section: 12,Rule 32(1),Rule 32(2)

SUMMARY Held: Issue / Section of Laws. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Rules, 2016 —Vires of Rules- The government has the power to frame rules (we would avoid using the word “discretion” for the reason of its being inappropriate for rule making), there could be no escaping from the fact rules made must be in consonance with the aims and objects of the parent law. The impugned amendment plainly falls short of the standards mandated under the parent statute. In this context, it appears entirely misconceived on the part of the respondent-department to suggest that the rules were framed in the so-called “best interest of the state children.” The deletion of clauses (b) and (c), relating to age, educational qualification, and experience, is wholly unjustified and cannot be reconciled with the object and purpose of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010. Equally unpersuasive is the contention that widening the scope of appointments to include persons from across the country enhances the selection process. No evidence has been placed on record to show that a comprehensive country-wide search was undertaken, nor could it be realistically expected that such persons, from outside the Province, would possess the requisite familiarity and hands-on experience necessary to discharge the complex functions entrusted to non-official members of the Institute Management Committee.   The petitioner challenged the 2021 amendment to Rule 32 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Rules, 2016, which removed key eligibility requirements (age limit, education, and experience) for non-official members of the Institute Management Committee (IMC) under the Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010. He argued that: The amendment weakened the IMC structure. It allowed unqualified persons (contractor and doctors) to be appointed. It was made with mala fide intent and contrary to child welfare objectives. The Court held that: The IMC has a highly sensitive role in child protection and must include qualified, experienced members. The 2021 amendment…