Child commission head’s appointment challenged

By A Staff Reporter

IMPHAL | Oct 9

The hearing of a petition challenging the appointment order of the new chairperson of Manipur Commission for Protection of Child Rights (MCPCR) began today at the single bench of Justice Kh. Nobin Singh, High Court of Manipur.

The petition (No. WP (C) 739 of 2017) was filed by advocate S. Syamacharan Singh, who is also one of the members of the MCPCR on October 3 at the court challenging that the appointment has violated the rules under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. 

Advocate S. Rajeetchandra represented the petitioner while the advocate general (AG) of represented the respondent (Government of Manipur).

In today’s hearing, both the counsels submitted their arguments before the bench pertaining to the rules for the appointment of the chairperson of the MCPCR.

The petitioner’s counsel pleaded the court to pass an interim order to stay the appointment order contending that the authority concerned has violated the norms.

According to the petitioner, under Section 18 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 any vacancy for the post of chairperson or member shall be given wide publicity through open advertisement in at least four national daily newspapers before appointing the chairman.

Subsequently, the appointment should be conducted following the recommendation of the selection committee which shall consist of the chairperson of the committee who is the minister in-charge of the department (social welfare) and three members of the commission.

But, in total violation of the selection norms, as per the petitioner, the concerned authority issued appointment order of the chairman on September 29 signed by K. Bono, deputy secretary (Social Welfare), appointing one Sumatibala Ningthoujam of Mayai Leikai of Heirok part-3.

The same day, another order signed by the secretary was also reportedly issued terminating the S. Sarat Sharma as chairperson of the MCPCR, following completion of his term.

In response, the respondent’s counsel (AG), reportedly submitted that there was no separate set of rules for the MCPCR in that matter thereby bringing forth the question on the selection procedure conducted earlier while appointing the two previous chairpersons of the commission.

Having heard both the counsels, the single bench fixed the next hearing on October 13 before maintaining the status quo of an earlier directive issued by the acting chief justice, N. Kotiswar Singh on October 4 which ruled that “if the private respondent has not taken over the charge of the office the chairperson of MCPCR, status quo be maintained as on today”.

In the meantime, the respondents will also submit relevant documents before the bench on the procedure earlier adopted by the authority during the appointing of two previous chairperson of the commission.