A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of 2025 (Supreme Court of India, 3 March 2025) examines whether Aadith Ramadorai (“A”), a 22-year-old US citizen with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy and mild intellectual disability, possesses legal capacity to make independent, long-term decisions (notably residence) and whether his best interests are served by permitting him to remain in India with his father. The High Court (Madras) had dismissed a habeas corpus petition after a brief oral interaction with A and concluded he was consensually living with his father; the appellant-mother challenged that finding.

The Supreme Court ordered and relied on a multidisciplinary assessment by NIMHANS, Bengaluru and prior evaluation by an Idaho Evaluation Committee. Those expert reports concordantly found that A functions at an 8–10 year-old cognitive level, has significant deficits in higher-order decision-making (financial, long-term residence, safety), and therefore lacks capacity to make legally binding complex decisions. The Court held that the High Court erred in discarding specialist reports based on a short interaction.

Applying the doctrine of parens patriae and prioritising the best interest and welfare of A, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, held A incapable of independent decisions, placed him under the sole custody/guardianship of the mother (who had earlier been appointed full guardian by an Idaho Court), and directed repatriation to the US with specific supervisory directions.

Keywords: Custody; Ataxic Cerebral Palsy; Intellectual Disability; Capacity; NIMHANS Comprehensive Assessment; Habeas corpus; Parens patriae; Guardianship; Best interest of the child/adult; Comity of courts.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The litigation arises from an intra-familial custody conflictover Aadith, born in the US (06.06.2003), diagnosed with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy and mild intellectual disability, whose parents are US citizens and divorced in Idaho (2007). The Idaho proceedings, including a guardianship petition (filed 30.06.2022), resulted in interim and later full/permanent guardianship of the mother by an Idaho Court (temporary guardianship 10.01.2024; full guardianship 09.04.2024). While guardianship proceedings were pending, the father took A to India (31.12.2023) and they resided with paternal grandparents in Chennai; passport and travel details became the subject of investigation and a habeas corpus petition in the Madras High Court asserting illegal detention.

The Madras High Court engaged briefly with A, concluded he was consensually residing with his father, and dismissed the writ. On appeal the Supreme Court, noting the sensitive overlap of disability, guardianship and foreign orders, directed comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment at NIMHANS to determine capacity and then re-examine best-interest issues before exercising parens patriae powers.

The record thus includes:

(i) Idaho Evaluation Committee reports (17.05.2023 & addendum 25.10.2023) recommending guardianship;

(ii) Institute of Mental Health Kilpauk observation (Nov–Dec 2024);

(iii) NIMHANS assessments (Jan–Feb 2025) culminating in a Comprehensive Assessment Report which became central to the Court’s decision.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Aadith and his younger brother Arjun were raised in Idaho with long-standing special education and therapies in the US. Parental divorce (2007) produced joint custody arrangements; by 2022 the father had physical custody of Aadith. The mother filed for guardianship in Idaho in June 2022 and the father counter-claimed that guardianship was unnecessary. During the guardianship process the father removed Aadith to India without providing a return itinerary and resisted contact between mother and son, prompting police complaints and habeas corpus proceedings in India.

The Idaho Court issued emergency directions (22.02.2024) and later permanent guardianship for the mother (09.04.2024), yet Aadith remained in India. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ after a short oral interaction; this judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ordered NIMHANS assessment; that multidisciplinary testing including WAIS-IV (India), Binet-Kamat, VSMS, VABS-3, Theory-of-Mind tests and decision-making tasks repeatedly returned scores and impressions that Aadith functions at about an 8–10 year cognitive level, with severe disability (80% overall) and significant limitations in complex decision-making and financial judgement.

The evaluation bodies concluded he requires guidance, supervision, and likely guardianship to protect his welfare.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether Aadith is capable of making independent decisions?
ii. Whether Aadith’s best interests and welfare would be served by permitting him to continue residing with Respondent No. 4 (father) in India?
iii. What weight should Courts accord to specialist expert reports (medical/psychological evaluations) in capacity and custodial disputes?
iv. How should comity to foreign judicial orders be balanced against the parens patriae duty to protect a vulnerable person within India’s jurisdiction?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The mother argued:

(i) the High Court erred by relying on a brief oral interaction and ignoring detailed Evaluation Committee and other records showing Aadith’s incapacity;

(ii) Aadith has long-term specialised services, entitlements (US disability benefits, health insurance) and schooling in the US which are essential for his welfare;

(iii) the Idaho Court had already granted full guardianship to the mother the Madras High Court ought to have respected that fact and investigated the father’s unilateral removal of Aadith;

(iv) evidence pointed to manipulation and restricted access engineered by the father;

(v) repatriation to the US under the mother’s guardianship would best serve Aadith’s interests.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The father contended:

(i) despite disability, Aadith is an adult entitled to make his own choices and had expressed his wish to stay in India;

(ii) the Madras High Court’s on-the-spot interaction demonstrated his voluntariness;

(iii) Aadith was receiving meaningful care, skill training and family support in Chennai;

(iv) the Kilpauk Observation Report found only mild intellectual disability (IQ 54) and functionality enabling independent living with family assistance;

(v) decisions of a major should be respected and guardianship unnecessary.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court undertook a careful, evidence-based approach. It emphasised the limited value of a few minutes’ courtroom interaction when expert, multidisciplinary evaluations exist. The Court treated NIMHANS’ Comprehensive Assessment Report and the Idaho Evaluation Committee reports as authoritative, noting concordance: both found Aadith’s global cognitive functioning is in the mild intellectual disability range but his functional/decision-making age approximates 8–10 years, with severe disability rated as 80% overall.

The NIMHANS battery revealed deficits across adaptive behaviour, social cognition, executive functioning, language, and decision-making (Delay Discounting); speech and dysarthria impacted comprehension of complex instructions; financial judgment and capacity for long-term planning were notably deficient. The Court reiterated the proper role of expert opinion: courts may differ from experts but cannot discard specialist multidisciplinary findings without cogent reasons; in questions of capacity and welfare involving niche medical expertise, expert reports deserve due credence unless shown unreliable.

Finding no such infirmity in the NIMHANS or Idaho reports (and finding the Kilpauk observation incomplete and one-sided), the Court concluded Aadith lacks the legal capacity to make independent binding decisions on complex matters like long-term residence. Applying the parens patriae doctrine, the Court held that Aadith’s best interests require return to the US where he has established educational plans, entitlement to benefits, continuity of specialised services and the company of his younger brother.

The High Court’s finding of consensual residence was set aside as seriously erroneous. The Supreme Court directed that Aadith be under the mother’s sole custody/guardianship (consistent with the Idaho order), ordered repatriation within 15 days, facilitated return of passport by the US Consulate, and imposed measures to ensure parental cooperation and contact while expressly preserving the father’s role in the child’s life, subject to the directive framework.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The controlling ratio is twofold:

(i) where multidisciplinary specialist evidence establishes that a person’s cognitive and adaptive functioning is substantially below majority and that the person cannot independently make higher-order decisions, courts must give due weight to such expert findings before inferring consent;

(ii) where capacity is absent and welfare considerations predominate, the doctrine of parens patriae permits the court to override foreign orders or deference to comity if necessary to secure the person’s best interests here, repatriation and placement in the guardian’s care. The Court thus prioritised expert consensus on incapacity and the child’s best interest over a prior High Court conclusion based on cursory interaction.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed (obiter) that:

(i) comity of courts must yield where best interest of a vulnerable person is at stake and where an Indian court conducts an elaborate enquiry;

(ii) multidisciplinary evaluations not singular or father-sourced histories provide reliable bases for capacity findings;

(iii) courts must be overly cautious in inferring consent from persons whose mental age is well below the age of majority. These observations underline procedural caution in future custody/capacity disputes.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Give due credence to specialist, multidisciplinary reports in capacity disputes unless clear cause to doubt them.

• Avoid determining capacity solely on brief courtroom interactions.

• Where capacity is doubtful and outcomes significant (custody, residence, financial/legal rights), order comprehensive assessments (neuropsychological, speech, social work, occupational therapy).

• Apply parens patriae to protect vulnerable persons even if a foreign court has issued an order — balance comity against welfare.

• Facilitate cross-jurisdictional cooperation (e.g., consular assistance) when repatriating citizens with disabilities.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision is a careful, welfare-centric adjudication that clarifies three practical principles for Indian courts:

(1) expert multidisciplinary assessments are central to capacity determinations and cannot be lightly disregarded;

(2) consent inferred from a brief interaction with a cognitively impaired adult is unreliable when expert evidence points otherwise;

(3) international comity yields where a vulnerable person’s best interests demand intervention.

The Court strikes a balanced approach ordering repatriation while preserving the father’s contact rights and emphasising rehabilitative/supervisory care thereby aligning legal remedies with disability-aware, rights-protective practice. Practitioners should note the evidentiary emphasis: careful forensic assessment (standardised tools, impairments adjusted for motor disability, multidisciplinary synthesis) will determine outcomes in complex custody/guardianship matters involving cognitive disabilities.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

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

2. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1.

3. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368.

4. Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das, (2019) 7 SCC 490.

5. Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231.

6. Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 8 SCC 454.

7. Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw, (1987) 1 SCC 42.

8. Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde, (1998) 1 SCC 112.

9. Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 937.

10. V. Ravi Chandran (Dr.) (2) v. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 174.

11. Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42.

b. Important Statutes / Instruments Referred

• Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (referred contextually in Suchita Srivastava).