The Patna High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Bihar State Child Labour Commission (Amendment Act) 2024.
The amendment act dissolved the existing Child Labour Commission and provided for the reconstitution of a new commission.
The petitioner, who was a member of the dissolved commission, argued that the amendment act was arbitrary and politically motivated.
However, the bench of Division Bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Nani Tagia rejected this argument, holding that the amendment act was enacted to revamp the existing structure and functioning of the commission, in light of changes in laws and procedures relating to child labour.
The court observed the petitioner had no vested right to continue as a member of the commission, and that the dissolution of the commission was not arbitrary.
The court also noted that the appointment of an administrator to manage the affairs of the commission was only for the interim period, and that the amendment act provided for the reconstitution of a fresh commission within a period of two months.
The court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had failed to make out a case of arbitrariness or unconstitutionality of the amendment act.
The post appeared first on .
The amendment act dissolved the existing Child Labour Commission and provided for the reconstitution of a new commission.
The petitioner, who was a member of the dissolved commission, argued that the amendment act was arbitrary and politically motivated.
However, the bench of Division Bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Nani Tagia rejected this argument, holding that the amendment act was enacted to revamp the existing structure and functioning of the commission, in light of changes in laws and procedures relating to child labour.
The court observed the petitioner had no vested right to continue as a member of the commission, and that the dissolution of the commission was not arbitrary.
The court also noted that the appointment of an administrator to manage the affairs of the commission was only for the interim period, and that the amendment act provided for the reconstitution of a fresh commission within a period of two months.
The court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had failed to make out a case of arbitrariness or unconstitutionality of the amendment act.
The post appeared first on .