Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan have ruled that expert opinions on a child's disability should take precedence over inferred consent in custody matters. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Sharmila Velamur v. Sanjay and Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Sharmila Velamur v. Sanjay and Ors. Case? 

• The case involves Aadith Ramadorai, a 22-year-old US citizen with significant cognitive disabilities, specifically Ataxic Cerebral Palsy, whose parents - both US citizens - divorced in 2007 through an Idaho Court, initially establishing a joint custody arrangement that equally divided parental time and responsibilities for Aadith and his younger brother Arjun, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder. 
• The original Idaho Court divorce settlement explicitly prohibited either parent from relocating the children's residence without prior written consent, mandating a structured custody schedule where each parent would have the children from 8:00 am Friday to 8:00 am Monday alternately, and requiring equal division of holidays. 
• In June 2022, a significant shift occurred when the father brought one child (Arjun) back to the mother's home while Aadith remained with the father, prompting the mother to file a guardianship application in the Idaho Court seeking full legal guardianship over Aadith, which the father contested by arguing that Aadith was sufficiently capable of making independent decisions. 
• Medical evaluations became crucial in understanding Aadith's cognitive capabilities, with the Institute of Mental Health in Kilpauk assessing him as having a mild intellectual disability (50% disability), an IQ of 54, and capable of simple tasks but requiring family support for major life decisions. 
• In a critical turn of events, the father obtained Aadith's passport and left the United States in December 2023, arriving in Chennai, India, and residing with paternal grandparents, which occurred simultaneously with ongoing legal proceedings in the Idaho Court where the mother had been appointed as Aadith's temporary guardian. 
• The mother responded by filing multiple legal actions, including an online police complaint, a complaint with the NRI Cell in Chennai, and a habeas corpus petition in the Madras High Court, all aimed at retrieving custody of Aadith and challenging what she perceived as an illegal removal of her son from the United States. 
• A comprehensive psychological assessment by NIMHANS, Bengaluru revealed extensive details about Aadith's cognitive functioning, determining his social age to be approximately 7 years, diagnosing a moderate disability in social and adaptive functioning, and highlighting significant limitations in his ability to make complex, independent decisions. 
• The subsequent legal proceedings involved intricate deliberations about Aadith's capacity to provide informed consent, with medical experts from multiple institutions providing detailed evaluations that consistently indicated his cognitive abilities were significantly below those expected for his chronological age. 
• The case ultimately transformed into a complex international legal dispute centered on determining Aadith's decision-making capacity, identifying his best interests, and establishing an appropriate custodial arrangement that would provide him with necessary support, care, and protection given his cognitive limitations. 
• There are 2 issues: 
  • Whether Aadith is capable of making independent decisions?  
  • Whether Aadith’s best interests and welfare would be served by permitting him to continue residing with Respondent No. 4 in India? 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court critically examined Aadith's capacity to make independent decisions, fundamentally rejecting the High Court's earlier determination that he could consensually reside in India, based on a brief oral interaction. 
• The Court definitively established that Aadith, despite being chronologically 22 years old, possesses cognitive abilities equivalent to an 8-10 year old child, rendering him incapable of making complex, legally binding decisions about his residence and future. 
• Multiple expert assessments, particularly from NIMHANS, Bengaluru, conclusively demonstrated Aadith's significant cognitive limitations, including: 
• An intelligence quotient (IQ) of 53, placing him in the "very low range of cognitive ability". 
  • Substantial challenges in performing complex tasks. 
  • Inability to make informed decisions about long-term consequences. 
  • Requirement of constant guidance and supervision. 
• The Court stated that the paramount principle of "best interests of the child" doctrine, prioritizing Aadith's welfare over procedural technicalities or parental disputes. 
• The judgment provides that Aadith's established life in the United States - including specialized educational programs, familiar environment, and crucial sibling relationship - constitutes a more supportive ecosystem for his developmental needs. 
• The Court critically observed that the High Court's original judgment was procedurally flawed, having been rendered hastily without comprehensive evaluation of medical assessments and expert reports. 
• Legal precedents were systematically analysed, particularly regarding decision-making capacities of individuals with cognitive disabilities, reinforcing the Court's stance on protecting vulnerable individuals. 
• The Supreme Court unequivocally directed Aadith's return to the United States under his mother's guardianship, ensuring continued access to specialized educational and support services. 
• The judgment emphasized maintaining parental connectivity, directing both parents to share contact information and ensure the children's access to both parents, while prioritizing the children's welfare. 
• The Court's observed the nuanced approach required in legal proceedings involving individuals with developmental disabilities, stressing the necessity of expert medical assessments and comprehensive evaluations over superficial interactions. 

What are the Legal Principles Governing Child Custody and Guardianship? 

• Parens Patriae Doctrine 
  • A fundamental legal principle where the court acts as a guardian for individuals unable to protect their own interests. 
  • Specifically applied in cases involving children or individuals with cognitive limitations. 
  • Empowers the court to make decisions in the best interest of vulnerable individuals. 
• Doctrine of Best Interests 
  • A paramount legal consideration in custody and child welfare cases. 
  • Requires courts to evaluate:  
    • Stability and security 
    • Loving and understanding care 
    • Child's character and personality development 
    • Intellectual development 
    • Future prospects 
    • Moral and ethical considerations 
• Comity of Courts Principle 
  • Recognizes international legal jurisdictions. 
  • Allows courts to override foreign court orders when the welfare of the child is at stake. 
  • Emphasizes that child's welfare supersedes procedural jurisdictional constraints. 
• Guardianship Laws 
  • Provisions for appointing legal guardians for individuals with cognitive disabilities. 
  • Considers medical assessments and expert opinions in determining guardianship. 
  • Focuses on protecting the rights and welfare of individuals with limited decision-making capacities. 
• Medical Consent and Decision-Making Capacity 
  • Legal framework for determining an individual's capacity to provide informed consent. 
  • Relies on expert medical assessments. 
  • Protects individuals from making decisions that could harm their interests. 
• International Child Custody Considerations 
  • Legal mechanisms for resolving cross-border custody disputes. 
  • Prioritizes child's welfare over jurisdictional technicalities. 
  • Considers factors like established environment, educational continuity, and familial relationships.

What is the Principle of Welfare of Child?   

• Section 13 of Hindu Minorities and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA):  
  • This Section provides that the in the appointment or declaration of any person as guardian of a Hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration.  
• Section 17 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890:  
  • This Section provides matters to be considered while appointing a guardian.   
  • Section 17 (1) provides that in appointing or declaring the guardian of a minor, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be guided by what, consistently with the law to which the minor is subject, appears in the circumstances to be for the welfare of the minor.   
  • Section 17 (2) provides that In considering what will be for the welfare of the minor, the Court shall have regard to the age, sex and religion of the minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian and his nearness of kin to the minor, the wishes, if any, of a deceased parent, and any existing or previous relations of the proposed guardian with the minor or his property.   
  • Section 17 (3) provides that if the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the Court may consider that preference.   
  • Section 17 (5) provides that the Court shall not appoint or declare any person to be a guardian against his will.