Dasari Anil Kumar vs The Child Welfare Project Director

2025 INSC 972 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.6322 OF 2025)

DASARI ANIL KUMAR & ANOTHER …APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE CHILD WELFARE PROJECT DIRECTOR & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.4342 OF 2025)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.6426 OF 2025)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.6605 OF 2025)

JUDGMENT

NAGARATHNA, J.

Signature Not Verified

Leave granted.

Digitally signed by BORRA LM VALLI Date: 2025.08.13 15:34:04 IST Reason: Page 1 of 10

2. Being aggrieved by the common judgment dated 28.11.2024

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court for the State of

Telangana in Writ Appeal Nos.1265 of 2024, 1277 of 2024, 1267

of 2024, 1266 of 2024, the appellants respectively are before this

Court.

3. The appellants assailed the validity of the action of the police

authorities in taking away the custody of the minor children from

them as they claim to be the “adoptive parents” on the premise

that it is without authority of law. The details of the cases as

narrated by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal

Nos.1265 of 2024, 1277 of 2024, 1267 of 2024, 1266 of 2024 are

extracted as under:

“In W.A. No.1265 of 2024, it is the case of the respondents No.1 and 2 that they are the adoptive parents of one minor girl child, namely D. Maanvika, who is aged about three years. It is their case that respondents No.1 and 2 were informed through a common friend that a nine days old baby girl is available for adoption. The aforesaid respondents therefore adopted the child on 30.03.2024, in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, "the 1956 Act").

In W.A.No.1277 of 2024, the respondent No.1 claims that she has adopted a two days old baby girl, namely K. Un1a Maheshwari, from her biological parents on

Page 2 of 10 15.11.2021, as they were not in a position to bring up the child.

In W.A.No.1267 of 2024, the respondents No. l and 2 assert they learnt through a common friend that a twenty days old baby girl, namely S.Rishika, is put up for adoption. Therefore, the said respondents adopted the said child on 26.01.2024 from her biological parents.

In W.A.No.1266 of 2024, the respondents No.l and 2 claim to be adoptive parents of a minor child, namely B.Sresta. It is their case that they adopted the aforesaid two days old baby girl on 22.01.2024 from the biological parents.”

4. In fact, there were petitioners, who are said to be “adoptive

parents” in nine Writ Petitions before the learned Single Judge of

the High Court, who sought a declaration that action of the

Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda and Station House Officer,

Medpally Police Station in forcibly and illegally taking the custody

of the minor children from the appellants and handing them over

to the Child Welfare Project Director and integrated Child

Protection Services, Sishuvihar, Hyderabad on the basis of the

First Information Report No.579 of 2024 dated 22.05.2024 was

illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 20 of the

Constitution of India.

Page 3 of 10

5. The learned single Judge by his common order dated

23.09.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.22020, 19623, 21108, 21980,

21981, 17040, 22026, 22429 and 23727 of 2024 allowed the Writ

Petitions and held that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice

(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for brevity, “the Act”),

did not apply to the fact situation of the cases and further the

action of the police authorities in taking the custody of the

children in question from the appellants herein who claim to be

adoptive parents of the children in question was illegal and

without authority of law. The learned single Judge of the High

Court granted liberty to the appellants herein to adopt the

procedure prescribed for continuation of the custody of the

children with them by validly executing adoption deeds or by

following any other procedure which would allow them to retain

the custody of the children forever.

6. Being aggrieved by the said common order dated 23.09.2024

passed by the learned single Judge, the Child Welfare Project

Director, Women, Children, Disabled And Senior Citizen and

Welfare Department, Medchal, Malkajgiri District and Directorate

Page 4 of 10 of Women Development and Child Welfare Department,

represented by its Director, Yusufguda Main Road,

Madhuranagar, Yusufguda, Hyderabad, had preferred the

appeals. There were also intervening application in the Writ

Appeals. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the

High Court for the State of Telangana disposed of the appeals by

setting aside the order of the learned single Judge and observed

in paragraphs 25 and 26 as under:

“25. The children in question are in the custody with the Committee since 22.05.2024. Therefore, presently in the obtaining factual matrix of the case, we are not inclined to disturb the custody of the children on account of non- compliance of Sections 36, 37 and 38 of 2015 Act. It is stated before us that social investigation has been completed.

26. However, it is necessary to issue the following directions:

(1) The Committee shall pass an order in terms of Section 37 of the 2015 Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed today.

(2) Some of the adoptive parents have filed an seeking adoption of the children. The competent authority is directed to decide the application seeking adoption within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order passed today.

(3) Needless to state that the custody of the children shall be subject to outcome of the aforesaid directions.”

Page 5 of 10

7. Hence, these appeals.

8. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and

learned counsel for the respondents and learned ASG at length.

We have perused the material on record.

9. The details of the “Adoptive parents” and the children are

provided by learned senior counsel for the appellants in a tabular

form, which is reproduced as under:

NAME AND DISTRICT & STATE SL NAME OF DATE OF DATE OF SLP No. OCCUPATION OF OF RESIDENCE OF No. THE BABY ADOPTION CONFISCATION PARTIES PARTIES P1- Dasari Anil kumar (Occupation – Assistant Engineer- Scientific Assistant, Bhabha Atomic SLP (C) Prakasam District, Research Centre) D. Maanvika 1. No. 6322 Andhra Pradesh 30.03.2024 22.05.2024 of 2025 State P2- Bezawada Sathya (Occupation- Customer Associate, State Bank of India) Sole Petitioner – Kandala Padma (Occupation – Village SLP (C) Organization Assistant) Nalgonda District, K. Uma 2. No. 4342 15.11.2021 22.05.2024 Telangana State Maheshwari of 2025 Husband – Late Kandala Venkat Reddy (Passed away on 05.05.2023, after the adoption) P1 – Shulla Mallesh (Occupation – Senior Graphic Designer, BRK SLP (C) Medchal-Malkajgiri News) 3. No. 6426 District, Telangana S. Rishika 26.01.2024 22.05.2024 of 2025 State P2- Sowla Sruthi (Occupation – Pharmacist in Apollo Pharmacy) P1 – B Santosh (Occupation – Assistant Project Manager, GMMCO Limited) SLP (C) P2- Dasari Jagadeeswari Hyderabad, 4. No. 6605 B. Sresta 22.01.2024 22.05.2024 Devi Telangana State of 2025 (Occupation- Quality Designer – I, Electronic Arts Games India Pvt. Ltd.)

Page 6 of 10

10. Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and

learned counsel for the respondents, we find that ends of justice

would be served in the instant case by directing return of the

above-mentioned children to the “adoptive parents”. We also say

so by invoking our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution

in the peculiar facts of the case.

11. This is in the interest of the children owing to the bonding

between the “adoptive parents” and the respective children. This

is by following the principle of the best interest of the child;

principle of family responsibility; principle of safety, positive

measures, principle of Institutionalization as a measure of last

resort, principle of repatriation and restoration, which are also

enunciated as general principles in Section 3 of the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

12. For ease of reference, the aforesaid principles are extracted

as under:

“3. General principles to be followed in administration of Act.- The Central Government, the State Governments, the Board, the Committee, or other agencies, as the case may be, while implementing the provisions of this Act shall be guided by the following fundamental principles, namely:

Page 7 of 10 xxx

(iv) Principle of best interest: All decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop full potential.

(v) Principle of family responsibility: The primary responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the child shall be that of the biological family or adoptive or foster parents, as the case may be.

(vi) Principle of safety: All measures shall be taken to ensure that the child is safe and is not subjected to any harm, abuse or maltreatment while in contact with the care and protection system, and thereafter.

(vii) Positive measures: All resources are to be mobilised including those of family and community, for promoting the well-being, facilitating development of identity and providing an inclusive and enabling environment, to reduce vulnerabilities of children and the need for intervention under this Act.

xxx

(xii) Principle of institutionalisation as a measure of last resort: A child shall be placed in institutional care as a step of last resort after making a reasonable inquiry.

(xiii) Principle of repatriation and restoration: Every child in the juvenile justice system shall have the right to be re-united with his family at the earliest and to be restored to the same socio-economic and cultural status that he was in, before coming under the purview of this Act, unless such restoration and repatriation is not in his best interest.”

Page 8 of 10

13. In the circumstances, we direct the respondent-authorities

to handover the custody of the children to the respective

“adoptive parents” on or before 14.08.2025 by 05:00 PM.

14. However, as a safeguard and in the best interest of the

children, we direct that the Member Secretary of the State Legal

Services Authority and/or the Member Secretary of the District

Legal Services Committee, within whose jurisdiction the “adoptive

parents" reside to seek reports on the welfare and progress of the

child from the respective “adoptive parents” on a quarterly basis

starting from November, 2025 onwards. The Member Secretary of

the State Legal Services Authority and/or the Member Secretary

of the District Legal Services Committee will also be at liberty to

depute a Child Welfare Expert to inspect the home where the

child and the “adoptive parents” reside. This is to ensure the

welfare and progress of the children who have been returned to

the “adoptive parents”.

15. We again clarify that we have passed the aforesaid order in

the best interest of the children concerned in the instant case as

they have been with their adoptive parents for a few months upto

Page 9 of 10 three years in these cases.

16. A copy of the said report may also be submitted to the

jurisdictional Child Welfare Committee.

17. It is needless to observe that the aforesaid order has been

passed not only in the best interest of the children concerned, but

also by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to

do complete justice in the matter.

18. It is also needless to observe that this order would not come

in the way of any other proceeding that has been initiated by the

respondent(s)-authorities.

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

….............................., J.

[B. V. NAGARATHNA]

….............................., J.

[K.V. VISWANATHAN] NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 12, 2025.

Page 10 of 10