- Case
- SHARMILA VELAMUR v. V. SANJAY (Supreme Court of India, 03-03-2025)
- Law
- Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the "parens patriae" doctrine (paragraph 24), which refers to the duty of the Court to determine the course of action that would best serve the interests and welfare of a person who cannot make independent decisions. The judgment also touches upon the principle of comity of courts (paragraph 31), stating that it and a pre-existing order of a Foreign Court must yield to the best interests of the child, especially when the Court has decided to conduct an elaborate enquiry in this regard. The judgment reiterates the correct principle of law, which we have briefly drawn in para 22, that 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.
Guardianship Law: The judgment revolves around the guardianship of Aadith, a 22-year-old with intellectual disabilities. The Idaho Court initially granted joint custody to the parents and later appointed the Appellant as Aadith's full and permanent guardian (paragraphs 3.3, 3.8, 3.10). The Supreme Court considered reports from NIMHANS and the Evaluation Committee to determine Aadith's capacity to make independent decisions and ultimately concluded that he is incapable of making independent decisions and that his interests would be best served under the guardianship of the Appellant in the US (paragraphs 3.24, 41).
Family Law (Custody and Welfare of Children): The core issue is the custody and welfare of Aadith. The judgment emphasizes the "best interests and welfare of the child" as the paramount consideration (paragraphs 30, 31, 32, 39, 41). It discusses the importance of considering the child's wishes, the stability of their environment, their access to education and support systems, and their relationships with family members. The judgment also touches upon the concept of "Parental Alienation Syndrome" (paragraph 25).
Law of Evidence (Expert Opinion): The judgment discusses the weight to be given to expert opinions, particularly in cases involving individuals with cognitive limitations (paragraphs 20, 21, 22). It states that while courts are 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. The judgment emphasizes that 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, unless there are strong reasons to disbelieve the expert's report.
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act: The judgment references *Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn.* (paragraph 28, 29) and discusses the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, noting that the Court was required to respect the decision of a major.
