Supreme Court settles the question of guardianship of a disabled adult: Sharmila Velamur vs. V. Sanjay (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 3, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 299

Judges: Surya Kant, J., Dipankar Datta, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

When parents disagree about the care and residence of an adult child with disabilities, who decides what’s best? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this delicate question in Sharmila Velamur vs. V. Sanjay. This case concerns the custody and guardianship of Aadith Ramadorai, a 22-year-old U.S. citizen with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy, caught between his parents’ conflicting views on where and how he should live.

The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan, delved into the complexities of determining the best interests and welfare of an adult with intellectual disabilities, especially when parents are in disagreement. The court carefully considered medical assessments and the individual’s needs to arrive at a decision aimed at ensuring the most supportive and nurturing environment for the individual’s well-being.

Case Background

The case revolves around Aadith Ramadorai, a 22-year-old U.S. citizen diagnosed with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy, and the dispute between his parents, the Appellant and Respondent No. 4, both U.S. citizens, regarding his custody.

The Appellant and Respondent No. 4 married in Chennai, India, on July 9, 2001, and subsequently resided in Idaho, U.S., becoming U.S. citizens. They had two sons: Aadith, born on June 6, 2003, and Arjun, born on March 13, 2005. Both children have intellectual and developmental disabilities; Aadith has Ataxic Cerebral Palsy, and Arjun has Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Due to irreconcilable differences, the couple divorced on September 12, 2007, through an order by the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, U.S. (Idaho Court). The Idaho Court granted joint legal and physical custody of the sons, who were minors at the time. The custody terms stipulated that Respondent No. 4 would have custody from Friday 8:00 am to Monday 8:00 am, and the Appellant would have custody from Monday 8:00 am to Friday 8:00 am. Holidays were divided equally, and neither parent was to disparage the other in front of their sons, teachers, care providers, or medical providers. The Idaho Court also ruled that neither parent could move the children’s residence to a location that would make the custody and visitation schedule impractical without written consent or a court order.

In June 2022, Respondent No. 4 returned Arjun to the Appellant’s home but kept Aadith with him. By this time, Aadith had reached majority. On June 30, 2022, the Appellant filed a Guardianship Application before the Idaho Court, seeking full and permanent legal guardianship over Aadith. Respondent No. 4 countered on January 17, 2023, arguing that Aadith was capable and did not need a permanent guardian.

During a preliminary hearing on January 4, 2023, the attorneys agreed on mutual terms: (i) meeting with the Health and Welfare Committee within 45 days; (ii) sharing Aadith’s contact information with the Appellant; (iii) allowing regular in-person contact between the Appellant and Aadith, subject to his comfort; and (iv) providing advance notice for any foreign travel involving Aadith.

An interview with the Evaluation Committee of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare was scheduled for May 17, 2023. However, Respondent No. 4 and Aadith did not attend. A report was sent to the parties and authorities. Later, Respondent No. 4 brought Aadith for an interview, and an addendum dated October 25, 2023, was issued, concluding that Aadith required guardianship.

During this time, the Appellant discovered that Respondent No. 4 and Aadith had traveled to Chennai, India, to visit Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, without informing her of their itinerary, preventing her from maintaining contact with Aadith.

On January 10, 2024, the Idaho Court appointed the Appellant as Aadith’s temporary guardian. Investigations revealed that Respondent No. 4 had obtained Aadith’s passport and left the U.S. on December 31, 2023, residing in Chennai with Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

As a result, on January 31, 2024, the Appellant filed an online police complaint with Respondent No. 2 and authorized her brother, Respondent No. 1, to act on her behalf to retrieve custody of Aadith. On February 5, 2024, she lodged a complaint with the NRI Cell in Chennai. The police retrieved Aadith’s passport number and the last known address of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, but Aadith and Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 remained untraceable.

Meanwhile, on February 22, 2024, the Idaho Court issued an Emergency Order directing Aadith to return to Boise, Idaho, within 72 hours. When this was not followed, the Idaho Court appointed the Appellant as Aadith’s full and permanent guardian on April 9, 2024, after hearing testimonies and reviewing the Evaluation Committee’s reports.

Despite the Idaho Court’s decree, Aadith’s whereabouts remained unknown. The Appellant filed H.C.P. No. 886/2024 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras (High Court) through Respondent No. 1, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to retrieve custody of Aadith from Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and hand him over to Respondent No. 1.

During the proceedings, the High Court interacted with Aadith and determined that there was no illegal detention because Aadith was capable of understanding the questions and was happy to reside in Chennai with his father and paternal grandparents (Impugned Judgement). On September 9, 2024, the U.S. Consulate General, Chennai, revoked Aadith’s passport.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court issued interim directions on December 16, 2024: (i) Respondent No. 4 was to facilitate video calls between the Appellant and Aadith; (ii) upon the Appellant’s arrival in India, Respondent No. 4 was to hand over temporary custody of Aadith; (iii) while Aadith was under the Appellant’s temporary custody, both parents were to ensure his regular medical treatment; (iv) Respondent No. 4 was permitted to contact Aadith daily; and (v) the Appellant and Respondent No. 4 were to consult the best doctors in Chennai for Aadith’s continued treatment.

Aadith filed two interlocutory applications, I.A. No. 301117/2024 and I.A. No. 301051/2024, seeking to be impleaded in the matter and requesting the order dated December 16, 2024, be kept in abeyance until January 7, 2025. These applications were accompanied by signed affidavits stating Aadith was fully aware of the case’s facts and circumstances and that the applications were prepared per his instructions.

The Appellant also filed a Contempt Petition, alleging that Respondent No. 4 did not comply with the order dated December 16, 2024, by not allowing her to interact with Aadith on video call and refusing to hand over temporary custody upon her arrival in Chennai. On December 24, 2024, she was only permitted to interact with Aadith for about 30 minutes and had to leave without obtaining temporary custody.

On November 25, 2024, Respondent No. 4 brought Aadith for a medical assessment to the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai. The Observation Report recorded that Aadith had a history of developmental delay since childhood, with an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of 54, suggesting mild intellectual disability (50% disability). The report noted that he could do simple work on instructions, travel to familiar places alone, and live with family assistance but would require support for major decisions like property management.

On January 8, 2025, the Supreme Court directed that Aadith reside with his younger brother, Arjun, and the Appellant in Bengaluru, during the proceedings. Respondent No. 4 was allowed to visit and interact with his sons for 3 hours daily. The Appellant and Respondent No. 4 were directed to take the sons for medical assessment to the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, to determine if Aadith could make independent decisions. The report was to be submitted to the Court in a sealed cover.

The parties complied with the order, and Aadith has been residing with his brother and the Appellant in Bengaluru. Aadith and his brother were admitted as in-patients at NIMHANS, Bengaluru, on January 14, 2025.

From January 17, 2025, to January 29, 2025, Aadith was examined by the Department of Clinical Psychology at NIMHANS, Bengaluru, and administered several tests. The test findings were detailed in the judgment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Appellant initially filed H.C.P. No. 886/2024 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus to retrieve custody of Aadith from Respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

During the proceedings, the High Court interacted with Aadith and determined that there was no illegal detention because Aadith was capable of understanding the questions and was happy to reside in Chennai with his father and paternal grandparents. Based on these interactions, the High Court ruled in favor of Respondent No. 4.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to the present judgment.

Legal Framework

The judgment references the parens patriae doctrine, which imposes a duty on the Court to determine the course of action that would best serve the interests and welfare of an individual who cannot make independent decisions. The Supreme Court relied on the principle of comity of courts, emphasizing that while a pre-existing order of a Foreign Court must be considered, it must yield to the best interests of the child.

The judgment also considers the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, in the context of the Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. case, to highlight the importance of respecting the decisions and desires of individuals with cognitive impairments, while also considering the nuances and motivations behind such decisions.

The Supreme Court also considered the best interests and welfare principle, emphasizing that the welfare and happiness of the child are paramount considerations. This includes stability and security, loving and understanding care and guidance, and full development of the child’s character, personality, and talents.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• Argument: The High Court erred by relying solely on an oral examination of Aadith, ignoring his intellectual disability and cognitive limitations, as substantiated by the Evaluation Committee reports.
  
  Explanation: The Appellant contended that the High Court failed to adequately assess Aadith’s ability to provide consent due to his cognitive impairments.
• Argument: Aadith has resided in the U.S. his entire life and has been receiving specialized education there. His extended stay in India has interrupted his schooling and access to social security benefits and disability services.
  
  Explanation: The Appellant argued that permitting Aadith to continue residing in India is not in his best interests, as he is losing access to crucial support systems and educational opportunities available in the U.S.
• Argument: The High Court failed to consider that the Idaho Court had already granted the Appellant full and permanent guardianship over Aadith.
  
  Explanation: The Appellant asserted that the High Court should have shown more restraint, given that the parties were U.S. citizens and their rights were being dealt with by a competent court in the U.S.
• Argument: Aadith is being manipulated and tutored against the Appellant by Respondent No. 4, who is actively disobeying court orders by restricting Aadith’s access to the Appellant.
  
  Explanation: The Appellant claimed that Respondent No. 4 is influencing Aadith against her, thereby violating court orders and undermining their relationship.

Respondent No. 4’s Arguments:

• Argument: Aadith is mentally fit to make decisions about his own welfare and well-being. Despite his limitations, he is capable of informed judgment and independent or supported decision-making.
  
  Explanation: Respondent No. 4 argued that Aadith only needs some support and assistance, which he has been duly providing, and does not require a guardian.
• Argument: Respondent No. 4 has never manipulated or coerced Aadith, who desired to go to India and stay with his father.
  
  Explanation: Respondent No. 4 asserted that Aadith’s decision to live with him was voluntary and based on his own free will.
• Argument: Respondent No. 4, as Aadith’s primary caregiver, has safeguarded his son’s best interests and welfare in India, providing a stable, nurturing, and supportive environment.
  
  Explanation: Respondent No. 4 claimed that Aadith’s social, physical, and psychological growth were being impeded under the Appellant’s care, whereas, in India, he is showcasing greater autonomy.
• Argument: The assessment by the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, diagnosed Aadith with Mild Intellectual Disability, establishing an IQ score of 54 and recognizing a disability level of 50%.
  
  Explanation: Respondent No. 4 argued that Aadith’s developmental delays should not be equated with mental incapacity, and his decisions should be respected under law.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether Aadith is capable of making independent decisions?
2. Whether Aadith’s best interests and welfare would be served by permitting him to continue residing with Respondent No. 4 in India?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several cases and reports to address the issues at hand:

• Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368 – Relied upon for the parens patriae doctrine, emphasizing the court’s duty to determine the best course of action for individuals unable to make independent decisions.
• Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das, (2019) 7 SCC 490 – Cited in the context of “Parental Alienation Syndrome,” where the court considered the potential harm of separating a child from a parent.
• Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231 – Cited in the context of “Parental Alienation Syndrome,” where the court considered the potential harm of separating a child from a parent.
• Girish v. Radhamony K., (2009) 16 SCC 360 – Discussed to differentiate the facts where an independent adult made a decision versus a person with cognitive impairments.
• Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., (2009) 9 SCC 1 – Analyzed to highlight the importance of respecting the decisions of individuals with cognitive impairments, while also considering the nuances and motivations behind such decisions.
• Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 8 SCC 454 – Used by both parties to highlight various aspects of the ‘best interest of a child’ principle and the primacy afforded to decisions of Foreign Courts.
• Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw, (1987) 1 SCC 42 – Emphasized the principle that the welfare and happiness of the child are paramount considerations.
• Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde, (1998) 1 SCC 112 – Emphasized the principle that the welfare and happiness of the child are paramount considerations.
• Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 937 – Emphasized the principle that the welfare and happiness of the child are paramount considerations.
• V. Ravi Chandran (Dr.) (2) v. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 174 – Highlighted the importance of stability and security, loving and understanding care and guidance, and full development of the child’s character, personality, and talents.
• Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42 – Highlighted the importance of moral and ethical values in assessing the welfare of the child.

The Court also relied on various reports and assessments:

• Eligibility Reports and Evaluation Reports issued by the West Ada School District, Idaho, U.S.
• Report dated 17.05.2023 and addendum dated 23.10.2023 prepared by the Evaluation Committee.
• Patient Summaries from 2003 to 2005 issued by St. Luke’s Regional Medical Centre, Boise, Idaho.
• Observation Report dated 11.12.2024 issued by the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai.
• Assessment reports issued by various departments of NIMHANS, Bengaluru.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that when determining the guardianship and residence of an adult with intellectual disabilities, the paramount consideration is their best interests and welfare. This determination must be based on comprehensive assessments of their cognitive abilities, access to support systems, and the overall environment that promotes their well-being. While the views of the individual should be considered, they should not be the sole determining factor if the individual lacks the capacity to make well-informed, independent decisions.

Obiter Dicta

The Court observed that while respecting the principle of comity of courts and considering pre-existing orders of foreign courts is important, the best interests of the individual must always take precedence. The Court also emphasized the need for a holistic assessment, considering not only the individual’s expressed preferences but also their cognitive abilities, access to support systems, and the potential for manipulation or undue influence.

Final Order

The Supreme Court set aside the Impugned Judgement of the High Court of Judicature at Madras and directed Respondent No. 4 (V. Sanjay) to hand over custody of Aadith to the Appellant (Sharmila Velamur) to facilitate his repatriation to the U.S. within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court directed the Appellant to take appropriate steps to restore Aadith’s U.S. passport, social security benefits, and other entitlements. The Court also directed the Appellant to ensure that Aadith receives appropriate care and attention, including medical treatment and therapy, as required. The Court clarified that Respondent No. 4 would be entitled to reasonable visitation rights, subject to the convenience and comfort of Aadith.

Dissenting Opinion (If Any)

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was unanimous.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is significant because it clarifies the legal principles governing the guardianship and residence of adults with intellectual disabilities, particularly when parents are in disagreement. It reinforces the paramount importance of the individual’s best interests and welfare, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive assessment of their cognitive abilities and access to support systems. The judgment also provides guidance on balancing the principle of comity of courts with the need to protect the rights and well-being of vulnerable individuals. Furthermore, it highlights the potential for manipulation and undue influence and the need for courts to be vigilant in protecting individuals from such exploitation.

Related Cases

• Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368
• Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das, (2019) 7 SCC 490
• Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231
• Girish v. Radhamony K., (2009) 16 SCC 360
• Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., (2009) 9 SCC 1
• Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 8 SCC 454
• Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw, (1987) 1 SCC 42
• Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde, (1998) 1 SCC 112
• Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 937
• V. Ravi Chandran (Dr.) (2) v. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 174
• Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42

Further Reading

• Articles on the rights of persons with disabilities in India.
• Commentaries on the parens patriae doctrine.
• Legal analyses of guardianship laws in India and the U.S.
• Reports on the challenges faced by families of individuals with intellectual disabilities.