A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This analysis examines Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of 2025, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 03 March 2025. The dispute concerns custody of Aadith Ramadorai (A), a twenty-two-year-old United States citizen diagnosed with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy and Mild Intellectual Developmental Disorder, who was brought from the US to India by his father during pending guardianship proceedings in Idaho.

The Madras High Court, after a short in-court interaction with A, found no illegal detention and treated his residence with his father in India as consensual. The Supreme Court doubted that A possessed the capacity to make complex, legally binding decisions given his assessed cognitive functioning equivalent to an 8–10 year old child, and directed comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment at NIMHANS, Bengaluru. On medical and psychosocial evaluation, NIMHANS concluded that while A can make basic daily decisions, he lacks capacity for higher-order decisions (financial, long-term residence, legal).

The Supreme Court held that judicial findings cannot lightly discard expert multidisciplinary evaluations; where an expert consensus establishes incapacity, courts must give it due credence unless strong reasons justify disbelief. Applying the doctrine of parens patriae and prioritizing best interests of the person with disability, the Court set aside the High Court order, recognised the Appellant-mother’s guardianship (consistent with the Idaho order) and directed return-and-care measures in the US as being in A’s best interests.

Keywords: Custody; Ataxic cerebral palsy; Intellectual disability; Capacity to decide; Expert assessment; Habeas corpus; Parens patriae; Comity of courts; Best interest standard.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This matter arises from an interstate and international custody/guardianship conflict between two US citizens (parents) concerning their elder son Aadith (A), born 06.06.2003, diagnosed with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy and intellectual disability. The parents divorced in Idaho (2007) where joint physical and legal custody terms were earlier fixed. When A reached majority in the US he remained the subject of guardianship proceedings in Idaho: the mother sought permanent guardianship and the Idaho Evaluation Committee recommended guardianship on the basis that A could be manipulated and lacked full decision-making capacity.

During pendency the father took A to India (31.12.2023), and despite an Emergency Order directing return, A remained in Chennai with paternal grandparents; the Idaho Court thereafter appointed the mother as full and permanent guardian (09.04.2024). The mother filed habeas corpus before the Madras High Court alleging illegal detention. The High Court’s brief in-court interaction with A led it to treat his stay in India as consensual and dismiss the petition. Dissatisfied, the mother appealed to the Supreme Court which doubted the adequacy of the High Court’s approach (short oral testimony vs. contemporaneous multidisciplinary expert evaluations) and directed NIMHANS assessment to determine A’s capacity and best interests.

The NIMHANS Comprehensive Assessment concluded A has cognitive and adaptive functioning approximating an 8–10-year old, can manage simple daily activities but lacks capacity for complex, long-term decisions (including residence and financial/legal matters). The Supreme Court therefore emphasised deference to expert multidisciplinary reports, set aside the High Court order, held A lacked capacity to make legally binding long-term residence choices, and directed custody arrangements in the best interest of A consistent with the Idaho guardianship order.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Aadith (A) and his younger brother Arjun are US citizens born to parties married in Chennai (2001) but living and naturalised in Idaho, US. Both children have developmental disabilities A with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy, Arjun with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The Idaho district court’s 2007 custody order governed phases of shared custody and included a restraint against unilateral relocation without consent. In 2022 the father began caring for A more frequently; the mother filed a guardianship petition in Idaho (30.06.2022) seeking permanent guardianship when concerns were raised about A’s decision-making and vulnerabilities.

An Idaho Evaluation Committee (Psychologist, Physician, Social Worker) conducted assessments (May & Oct 2023) and recommended guardianship, describing A as prone to manipulation and lacking capacity for complex decisions. While guardianship proceedings were pending, the father left the US with A and paternal grandparents to Chennai (31.12.2023); the mother lost contact and filed local complaints in Chennai and a habeas corpus petition before the Madras High Court (HCP No. 886/2024). The High Court interviewed A briefly, concluded he was capable and willingly residing with his father, and dismissed the writ (09.08.2024).

The Idaho Court, after an Emergency Order and further process, granted the mother full permanent guardianship (09.04.2024). On appeal to the Supreme Court, interim directions required medical assessment at NIMHANS; A underwent inpatient multidisciplinary testing (Jan–Feb 2025). NIMHANS administered a battery of tests (VSMS, VABS-3, WAIS-4 India edition, BKT, MISIC subtest, Theory of Mind tasks, Delay Discounting, speech and psychosocial evaluations) and compiled a Comprehensive Assessment Report concluding A’s overall functioning roughly equated to an 8–10 year-old, capable of simple daily choices but lacking higher-order decision capacity; speech, social cognition, financial decision-making and executive function deficits were documented. The Supreme Court treated these findings as decisive absent strong contrary reasons.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether Aadith is capable of making independent, legally-binding decisions concerning long-term residence and other complex matters?

2. Whether it is in A’s best interests and welfare to continue residing in India with his father, or to return to the US under the mother’s guardianship?

3. What is the proper judicial approach to expert multidisciplinary evaluations in capacity/guardianship disputes and the interplay with comity to foreign court orders?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The mother submitted that the High Court erred by relying on a brief oral interaction to find consent; it ignored the Idaho Evaluation Committee’s report and subsequent Idaho court guardianship order. She argued A’s life-long residence, schooling, entitlements (US disability benefits, insurance till age 26, Medicaid eligibility thereafter) and specialized services make return to the US essential to his welfare. She alleged manipulation by the father, non-compliance with interim directions, restricted communications, and that the High Court should have awaited or relied upon specialist medical enquiry before dismissing the writ.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The father contended A was competent to make his residence choice, asserted no coercion and maintained that India provided stable care, socialization and skill-training. He relied on the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk observation report (IQ 54; able to do simple work and travel to familiar places alone) and the High Court’s direct assessment to show voluntariness. He argued comity and respect for autonomy of an adult person ought to control and resisted displacement.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court examined the medical evidence (NIMHANS Comprehensive Assessment), the Idaho Evaluation Committee reports (May 17, 2023 & addendum Oct 25, 2023), the Kilpauk observation, and procedural history (Idaho emergency order, guardianship decree). The Court emphasised that expert multidisciplinary evaluations in niche domains (neurodevelopmental disability, decision-making capacity) command respect and should not be discarded wholesale without cogent reasons.

NIMHANS’ battery revealed consistent deficits across cognitive, adaptive, social and executive domains: Vineland indices showed moderate deficits; WAIS and BKT placed A in mild intellectual disability range with prorated mental age ~10; Theory of Mind and Delay Discounting showed impaired perspective-taking and impulsive/ inconsistent valuation choices; speech pathology established inadequate speech and dysarthria.

The psychosocial assessment recorded A’s upbringing and preference to return to the US, but cautioned about his vulnerability amidst parental conflict. NIMHANS concluded A functions at an 8–10 year-old level and lacks capacity for complex decisions (financial, long-term residence), requiring substantive support and guardianship. The Court held that the Madras High Court’s conclusion based on a cursory engagement and without evaluating prior expert reports was materially flawed.

Applying the doctrine of parens patriae, the Court prioritized A’s welfare over mere comity with foreign orders; although comity is important, a pre-existing foreign order yields when the domestic enquiry (here a detailed medical assessment) establishes a conflicting best-interest outcome. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, held A incapable of independent complex decision-making, recognized the necessity of guardianship (consistent with the Idaho order), and directed custody and rehabilitative/medical continuity aiming at return to and reintegration in the US services framework as being in A’s best interests.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The controlling legal proposition is that when multidisciplinary expert opinion formed after comprehensive, domain-specific assessment concludes a person lacks capacity for higher-order decisions, courts must give that opinion due credence unless strong reasons to disbelieve exist. In disputes concerning persons with disabilities, best interest and welfare (doctrine of parens patriae) govern; comity or foreign orders cannot displace a local court’s duty to protect welfare where reliable expert evidence indicates vulnerability and incapacity. The Supreme Court thus applied expert medical findings to conclude incapacity and to direct guardianship/custody consistent with A’s welfare.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed as guidance that short judicial interviews cannot substitute for specialist assessments; courts should seek multidisciplinary input in niche neurodevelopmental matters. It remarked that where expert evidence indicates mental or psychological age below legal majority, courts must be cautious in inferring consent. The Court also stressed the desirability of parental cooperation and family therapy recommendations from NIMHANS as non-adversarial measures to promote A’s autonomy within supportive frameworks.

c. GUIDELINES 

1. Where capacity is in dispute, courts should commission multidisciplinary evaluation (psychology, psychiatry, speech & language, occupational therapy) from a reputable institution.

2. A court may not discard an expert’s report wholesale without articulable reasons and, if doubts exist, should order independent assessment rather than ignore specialist opinion.

3. In custody/guardianship disputes involving internationally resident persons, comity to foreign orders is subordinate to the child/person’s best interests determined after full enquiry.

4. Short, unstructured in-court questioning of the vulnerable person is insufficient to determine capacity for complex decisions.

5. When guardianship is indicated, courts should pair custodial orders with rehabilitation, skill-training, parental therapy, and supervised transition plans aligned with available social security/medical entitlements.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores two linked principles:

(i) deference to robust expert multidisciplinary assessment in capacity determinations; and

(ii) primacy of the best interest doctrine over formal comity where welfare considerations require intervention.

Practically, the judgment protects vulnerable adults from decisions that exceed their cognitive capacity and provides a template for courts facing cross-jurisdictional guardianship disputes directing rigorous scientific enquiry, cautious judicial fact-finding, and remedial custody arrangements that prioritize continuity of specialized care and statutory entitlements.

The judgment also signals that apparent adult autonomy cannot be presumed where consistent expert evidence indicates functioning at a substantially lower developmental level; courts must therefore fashion orders combining guardianship with therapeutic, educational and social-security planning. This approach aligns with contemporary disability-sensitive jurisprudence that balances respect for autonomy with protective oversight where required.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Girish v. Radhamony K., (2009) 16 SCC 360.

2. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., [2009] 13 SCR 989 : (2009) 9 SCC 1.

3. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., [2018] 4 SCR 955 : (2018) 16 SCC 368.

4. Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das, [2019] 9 SCR 212 : (2019) 7 SCC 490.

5. Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh, [2017] 2 SCR 312 : (2017) 3 SCC 231.

6. Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi), [2017] 7 SCR 281 : (2017) 8 SCC 454.

7. Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw, [1987] 1 SCR 175 : (1987) 1 SCC 42.

8. Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde, [1997] Supp. 5 SCR 30 : (1998) 1 SCC 112.

9. Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, [2022] 4 SCR 784 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 937.

10. V. Ravi Chandran (Dr.) (2) v. Union of India, [2009] 13 SCR 1022 : (2010) 1 SCC 174.

11. Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, [2008] 16 SCR 396 : (2009) 1 SCC 42.

b. Important Statutes / Instruments Referred

1. Doctrine of parens patriae (judicial protective jurisdiction).
2. Principles governing habeas corpus and guardianship as applied and developed in cited case law.