Child Custody & Repatriation — Custody of Vulnerable/Specially-abled Adult — Doctrine of Parens Patriae — Best Interests and Welfare Principle — Foreign Decrees and Comity of Courts — Pre-existing guardianship orders of Foreign Court (Idaho, USA) — Subject individual and parents were US citizens who resided in the US for nearly two decades — Individual was abruptly removed to India by the father during pendency of foreign guardianship proceedings — Held, under parens patriae jurisdiction, the supreme considerations are the overall best interests, welfare, and security of the vulnerable individual, to which foreign court decrees and principles of comity of courts must yield — Repatriation to the US served his best interests as he spent his formative years there, had access to specialized state-backed educational, vocational, and medical security programs, and shared a vital emotional bond with his specially-abled younger brother residing in the US — Sole custody granted to mother with directions to facilitate immediate repatriation to the USA.

advocatemmmohan

2025 INSC 299

(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)

SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA AND UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. _____ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17281 of 2024) with Contempt Petition (C) No. 9 of 2025, D/- 3-3-2025.

HEADNOTES

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 — Writs — Habeas Corpus — Custody and guardianship of adult with severe cognitive impairment — Scope of judicial inquiry — Summary oral interaction vs. Expert medical assessment — Implied or express consent — High Court dismissed Habeas Corpus petition solely based on a brief oral interaction with a 21-year-old US citizen diagnosed with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy and Mild Intellectual Disability, concluding he was consensually residing in India with his father — Held, Courts cannot discard multidisciplinary expert opinions without strong, valid reasons — Dismissing scientific evaluations in specialized medical domains following brief summary oral interaction was misconceived — Where expert medical evaluation conclusively establishes that the mental age of a vulnerable individual is well below the age of majority (8 to 10 years), no inference of express or implied consent can be drawn regarding acts having a substantive impact on their life or long-term residence — Judgment of High Court set aside.

(Paras 19, 20, 22, 23)

(B) Rights of Persons with Disabilities — Cognitive Capacity — Decision-making capability — Assessment by Expert Institutions — Detailed neuropsychological and adaptive behavior evaluations conducted by NIMHANS, Bengaluru revealed an IQ score of 53 and a socio-adaptive functioning age equivalent to an 8 to 10-year-old child (80% disability) — Held, while the individual demonstrates independent decision-making capability for basic, routine daily tasks, he lacks the cognitive capacity to make complex, informed, and legally binding decisions regarding financial, legal, social, or long-term residential matters without substantial external support, guidance, and oversight.

(Paras 11, 14, 15, 21, 23)

(C) Child Custody & Repatriation — Custody of Vulnerable/Specially-abled Adult — Doctrine of Parens Patriae — Best Interests and Welfare Principle — Foreign Decrees and Comity of Courts — Pre-existing guardianship orders of Foreign Court (Idaho, USA) — Subject individual and parents were US citizens who resided in the US for nearly two decades — Individual was abruptly removed to India by the father during pendency of foreign guardianship proceedings — Held, under parens patriae jurisdiction, the supreme considerations are the overall best interests, welfare, and security of the vulnerable individual, to which foreign court decrees and principles of comity of courts must yield — Repatriation to the US served his best interests as he spent his formative years there, had access to specialized state-backed educational, vocational, and medical security programs, and shared a vital emotional bond with his specially-abled younger brother residing in the US — Sole custody granted to mother with directions to facilitate immediate repatriation to the USA.

(Paras 24, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41)

Cases Referred:

1. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368 (Relied on) — Para 24

2. Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das, (2019) 7 SCC 490 (Referenced) — Para 25

3. Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231 (Referenced) — Para 25

4. Girish v. Radhamony K., (2009) 16 SCC 360 (Distinguished) — Paras 26, 27

5. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., (2009) 9 SCC 1 (Distinguished) — Paras 26, 28, 29

6. Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 8 SCC 454 (Relied on) — Paras 30, 31

7. Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw, (1987) 1 SCC 42 (Relied on) — Para 31

8. Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde, (1998) 1 SCC 112 (Relied on) — Para 31

9. Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 937 (Relied on) — Para 31

10. V. Ravi Chandran (Dr.) (2) v. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 174 (Relied on) — Para 32

11. Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42 (Relied on) — Para 32