LexSHARMILA VELAMUR versus V. SANJAY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 377 : 2025 INSC 299 Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of 2025) 03 March 2025 [Surya Kant,* Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether ‘A’ having severe cognitive limitations is capable of making independent decisions; whether best interests and welfare of ‘A’, a US citizen would be served by permitting him to continue residing with Respondent No.4-father in India. Headnotes† Child and family welfare – Custody matter – Appellant-mother and respondent no. 4-father are US citizens, divorced in US – Appellant was granted permanent legal guardianship of their elder son ‘A’ who suffers from Ataxic Cerebral Palsy, by the US Court – However, while the guardianship proceedings were pending, the Respondent No.4 brought A to India without informing the Appellant – She filed writ of habeas corpus in High Court alleging illegal detention of A – High Court very briefly interacted with A and held that he was consensually living with Respondent No.4 in India, dismissed the petition – Supreme Court doubting the child's capacity to make independent decisions, ordered a medical assessment at NIMHANS, Bengaluru: Held: NIMHANS, Bengaluru in its Comprehensive Assessment Report held that owing to ‘A’ cognitive and physical limitations, he does not possess the capacity to make well-informed, independent decisions, for his own benefit, on complex subject matter, such as long-term residence – This is also concurred by the report of the Evaluation Committee constituted by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (West Hub Developmental Disabilities Program) – Thus, as ‘A’ was assessed to possess the cognitive abilities of an 8 to 10-year-old child, the reasoning assigned by the High Court, * Author 378 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports of him consenually living in India is seriously erroneous – ‘A’ cannot make independent, legally-binding decisions on his own – High Court erred in coming to a finding on ‘A’s alleged illegal detention solely based on his perceived ‘independent’ decision to reside in India with Respondent No. 4 – Impugned judgment set aside – ‘A’ to be under the sole custody of the Appellant – Further directions issued. [Paras 21, 23, 41] Expert Opinion – Expert’s report to be given due credence unless strong reasons to disbelieve it – Parties are US citizens, divorced in US – Appellant-mother was granted permanent legal guardianship of their elder son ‘A’ (22 years old) with severe cognitive limitations – Appellant filed writ of habeas corpus in High Court alleging his illegal detention by the Respondent No.4-father – High Court very briefly interacted with ‘A’ and held that he was consensually living with his father in India, dismissed the petition – It did not consider the report of the Evaluation Committee constituted by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (West Hub Developmental Disabilities Program) consisting of a Psychologist, a Physician and a Social Worker, to decide whether ‘A’ was living consensually in India: Held: Even though Courts are well within their rights to come to a finding distinct from an expert’s report, the expert’s opinion cannot be discarded, as a whole without any reason – The dispute before the High Court concerned the sensitive and complex issue of alleged illegal detention of a person with severe cognitive limitations, it ought to have considered and given due credence to the Evaluation Committee’s report which had held that ‘A’ does not possess the capacity to make well-informed, independent decisions, for his own benefit, on complex subject matter, such as long-term residence – If the High Court had any doubt as to the reliability of the report and its conclusions, it ought to have ordered an enquiry through a reputable medical institution – Dismissing all aspects of scientific assessment in a highly specialized and niche area of medicine was misconceived and ill-founded – In the event there is any confusion or doubt regarding a person’s capacity and ability to make independent decisions and if there is a definitive opinion on disability endorsed by a specialist, domain expert, or a doctor, the Court should give due credence to that opinion – If [2025] 3 S.C.R. 379 Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors. the expert’s report concludes that the mental or physical age of the person concerned is well below the age of majority, there can be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.