The Supreme Court of India recently intervened in a sensitive custody dispute, directing authorities to return several minor children to the "adoptive parents" who had been caring for them. The court's decision, which utilized its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, was guided by the principle of "best interest of the child," a core tenet of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Background of the Case:
The case of Dasari Anil Kumar & Another v/s The Child Welfare Project Director & Others involved multiple appeals challenging a High Court decision. In these cases, individuals claiming to be "adoptive parents" were caring for children they had taken in through informal arrangements. The children's ages ranged from nine days to three years at the time they were taken in.
The police, acting on an FIR, had removed the children from the custody of these families and placed them with a Child Welfare Committee. The families contested this action, arguing it was illegal. A single judge of the High Court initially sided with the families, ruling that the police action was illegal and the Juvenile Justice Act did not apply.
However, a Division Bench of the High Court overturned this ruling. While not disturbing the children's custody with the Child Welfare Committee, the Division Bench issued a set of directions, including a directive for the committee to pass an order under Section 37 of the Act and for the competent authority to decide on the adoption applications.
The Supreme Court's Stance:
The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments, found that the "ends of justice would be served" by returning the children to their "adoptive parents." The court's decision was heavily influenced by the established bond between the children and the families, with some children having been with their adoptive parents for up to three years. The court reasoned that removing the children from a stable, loving environment would be detrimental to their welfare.
In its order, the court explicitly invoked several fundamental principles from Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act, including:
Principle of best interest: The court’s primary consideration must be the child's well-being.
Principle of family responsibility: The primary responsibility for a child’s care and protection lies with the biological family or adoptive parents.
Principle of institutionalization as a last resort: Placing a child in institutional care should only be done after all other options have been exhausted.
Principle of repatriation and restoration: Children have a right to be reunited with their families at the earliest possible time.
Conditions for Return:
To ensure the children's continued safety and well-being, the Supreme Court issued specific safeguards. The court directed that the Member Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority or the District Legal Services Committee within whose jurisdiction the parents reside would monitor the children's welfare. These authorities are tasked with seeking quarterly reports from the families and have the liberty to depute a Child Welfare Expert to inspect the homes.
The court made it clear that its decision, while a significant intervention, was passed in the unique circumstances of this case and does not preclude any other ongoing legal proceedings initiated by the authorities. This highlights the court's use of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to deliver complete justice, prioritizing human and emotional factors over strict legalistic interpretation.
