When a child is abandoned, abused, trafficked, homeless or accused before the law, the State cannot afford a vacuum. For that child, protection is not an abstract promise written into legislation. It is a living system of institutions empowered to act when no one else will. It is the difference between rescue and abandonment, rehabilitation and neglect, justice and uncertainty. The reported absence of duly constituted Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) and Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) in Jammu and Kashmir therefore raises a question that goes far beyond procedure: who stands between a vulnerable child and the failure of the system when the institutions created for that purpose are themselves missing?
This is not about vacancies, extensions or pending appointments. It is about the credibility of a framework designed to protect those least capable of protecting themselves. Juvenile Justice system rests on a simple principle: children are different from adults and must be treated differently by the law. Whether a child has been abandoned, rescued from exploitation, exposed to violence or drawn into the justice system, the response must be guided by protection, care and rehabilitation.
CWCs deal with children in need of care and protection, while JJBs ensure that minors in conflict with the law are handled through a process focused on reform rather than punishment. Together, they form the backbone of a system meant to safeguard children’s rights and ensure that vulnerability is met with institutional support.
Their importance lies not merely in their existence but in their authority. These are statutory bodies empowered to take decisions, provide oversight and ensure accountability in situations where delay can have lasting consequences. A child rescued from abuse cannot wait for administrative processes to catch up. A minor facing legal proceedings cannot be asked to return once appointments are finalised. Vulnerability does not follow bureaucratic timelines, and crises involving children rarely arrive with notice.
That is precisely why the law created independent statutory bodies instead of relying solely on routine administrative arrangements. Child protection demands specialised oversight and legally empowered decision-making. Interim mechanisms may serve a temporary purpose, but they cannot become a substitute for institutions created by legislation to perform specific functions.
The concern is particularly important because Jammu and Kashmir has spent years building a network intended to protect vulnerable children. Welfare services, district-level structures and rehabilitation systems were developed to create an institutional safety net. The establishment of CWCs and JJBs was a crucial part of that effort.
Children do not influence policy debates or command political attention. Their interests depend entirely on the vigilance of institutions created to protect them. For a child facing neglect, exploitation, homelessness or legal proceedings, these bodies are not administrative entities. They are often the first and only line of defence.
Such incidents are also a reminder that child welfare cannot be treated as a peripheral governance issue. Roads, infrastructure and development projects are visible markers of progress, but the true measure of governance lies equally in the strength of institutions that protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Juvenile Justice framework carries one of the most important promises the State can make: that every child, regardless of circumstance, will find protection, fairness and dignity within the system. That promise cannot survive on notifications and interim arrangements alone. It requires institutions that are functional, accessible and empowered to act. When those institutions fall silent, it is not merely an administrative lapse. It is a failure that leaves the most vulnerable waiting for a protection the law has already guaranteed them.
