Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
The Supreme Court today (March 3) ruled that in child custody matters, when there is uncertainty about the child's ability to make independent decisions, expert opinions confirming a disability should be prioritized over inferences drawn from direct interactions with the child. The Court emphasized the importance of relying on expert medical assessments to determine the capacity of individuals with disabilities to make independent decisions. It ruled that when a specialist's expert opinion confirms a child's inability to make independent decisions, custody decisions should not be based on the child's implied or express consent, as it could have significant consequences for the child.
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 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 no inference of any 'implied' or 'express' consent to any act which might have a substantive impact on the consenting person. Unless there are strong reasons to disbelieve an expert's report to this effect, the Courts must be overly-cautious in coming to a finding contrary thereto. Bearing this principle in mind, we must conclude that as A..(child) was assessed to possess the cognitive abilities of an 8 to 10-year-old child, the reasoning assigned by the High Court, of him consenually living in India, is seriously errant.”, the court observed.
The Case The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the case where there was a dispute over the custody of a 22-year-old person (having cognitive abilities of an 8 to 10-year-old child). The Appellant-mother sought his child's custody upon filing a habeas corpus petition before the Madras High Court, contending that the Respondent (father) had taken him to India from the USA without her consent, violating the US Court order granting custodial rights to the Appellant.
The Appellant-mother contended that although the Child is 22 years old, he had a cognitive ability of an 8 to 10-year-old kid, making him incapable of making complex, independent decisions, especially regarding long-term residence and financial matters.
The High Court, ignoring detailed medical reports supporting the child's cognitive abilities of an 8 to 10-year-old kid, denied custody to the Appellant based on a brief oral interaction with the Child.
Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the appellant-mother approached the Supreme Court. Decision Overturning the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant observed that the High Court erred in denying custody to the Appellant. The judgment emphasized that a brief oral interaction with a child lacking independent decision-making capacity cannot justify granting custody to the father when expert medical reports clearly establish the child's inability to make decisions regarding long-term residence and financial matters. The Court relied on medical assessments from NIMHANS, Bengaluru, and the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, which concluded that the Child had a cognitive functioning level of an 8-10-year-old child.
Thus, the Court stressed that if an expert report determines that a person's mental or physical age is significantly below the age of majority, no 'implied' or 'express' consent can be inferred for any action that may have a substantial impact on them. “If 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 no inference of any 'implied' or 'express' consent to any act which might have a substantive impact on the consenting person.”, the court observed. "In our considered view, even though Courts are well within their rights to come to a finding distinct from an expert's report, they cannot discard the expert's opinion, as a whole, for no rhyme or reason. Given that the dispute before the High Court concerned the sensitive and complex issue of alleged illegal detention of a person with severe cognitive limitations, the High Court ought to have considered and given due credence to the Evaluation Committee's report. 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 terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal and granted the Child's custody to the Appellant-mother, permitting her to take him back to the USA.
Case Title: Sharmila Velamur Versus V. Sanjay and Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 277
