The Jammu and Kashmir government's long-awaited decision to constitute a Child Rights Commission should have been a landmark in social governance. For years, children in the region have lacked an independent body to defend their welfare, education, and safety.

The October 18 advertisement by the Social Welfare Department inviting applications for the positions of Chairperson and Members was therefore a welcome step.

The accompanying rules, drawn from the Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, and the J&K Commission for Protection of Child Rights Rules, 2022, laid out a transparent and merit-based framework.

A week later, the optimism faded.

The shortlist of candidates, published on October 25, raised immediate doubts. Many qualified applicants, some with PhDs and decades of field experience, had been dropped. Others, lacking even the minimum prescribed qualifications or experience, found their names included.

The fairness promised in the advertisement appeared to have evaporated.

The advertisement itself could not have been clearer. It set a total of 100 marks to be awarded under three heads: 60 for academic merit, 20 for experience, and 20 for viva voce.

Within this, 40 marks were allotted for graduation, 10 for post-graduation, and 10 for higher qualifications such as M.Phil or PhD. Fifteen marks were set aside for ten years of relevant experience, with one additional point per extra year of service, capped at five.

This detailed structure was meant to remove discretion and ensure that the most deserving candidates naturally rose to the top.

But the published shortlist defied that structure.

Candidates with higher academic qualifications, who by simple calculation should have scored better, were inexplicably omitted. Those with weaker profiles appeared instead.

Such a departure from clear evaluation criteria suggests that the shortlisting committee either ignored or misapplied its own rules.

The consequences go beyond administrative error.

The Commission for Protection of Child Rights is not a ceremonial body. It investigates violations, monitors child care institutions, and advises the government on policy. Its members must combine professional competence with integrity. Any suspicion of bias in the selection process undermines both the commission's authority and the public's trust.

The opacity of the current procedure compounds the problem. The Social Welfare Department has not disclosed how marks were awarded or what method was used to screen applicants. The criteria for exclusion have not been shared.

Without transparency, the process invites allegations of favouritism and political influence. For a body charged with upholding justice, such doubts are damaging.

The situation calls for immediate correction.

The interviews scheduled for November 10 and 11 should be cancelled. The department must review all applications afresh in strict accordance with Advertisement Notice No. SWD-ICPS/55/2021 dated October 18, 2024. A revised shortlist should be issued publicly, displaying the qualifications and experience of each candidate alongside their scores.

This is standard practice in fair public recruitment and would restore credibility to the process.

There are strong reasons for speedy course-correction. Jammu and Kashmir's children face some of the toughest developmental and psychological challenges in India. According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), nearly 29 per cent of children under five in the region are stunted. UNICEF's reports highlight increasing psychosocial distress among adolescents exposed to conflict, displacement, and poverty.

A strong, impartial Child Rights Commission could have been a turning point, an institution capable of giving voice to those who have none.

Instead, its very foundation appears compromised. A flawed appointment process risks creating a weak, politicised body incapable of holding institutions accountable. Such an outcome would be worse than delay. It would erode confidence in the idea of justice itself.

Chief Minister Omar Abdullah and Social Welfare Minister Sakina Itoo have both spoken about transparency and ethical governance. Their credibility now depends on how they respond to this test. Cancelling the current interviews and ensuring a merit-based, transparent selection would demonstrate that fairness is a principle.

The problem is not unique to this commission. Across India, appointments to statutory bodies are often reduced to bureaucratic rituals, guided more by discretion than by design. In a region like Jammu and Kashmir, where governance still struggles to earn public trust, such carelessness is costly.

Institutions gain legitimacy only when their creation reflects the values they are meant to protect.

MENAFN05112025000215011059ID1110302321