Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court of India has issued a judgment in a case concerning the custody of a cognitively impaired adult, holding that an individual with a diagnosed intellectual disability, despite reaching the age of majority, may lack the capacity to make independent, legally binding decisions regarding residence and guardianship. The Bench of Justice Surya Kant, examined extensive medical evaluations and expert reports before determining that the subject of the case, a 22-year-old individual diagnosed with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy, required external guidance and legal guardianship for major life decisions.

The case arose from a dispute between the appellant, the biological mother, and the fourth respondent, the biological father, both of whom are United States citizens. The central issue pertained to the custody of their son, a U.S. citizen diagnosed with cognitive and developmental disabilities, who had been taken to India by the father despite ongoing guardianship proceedings in the United States. The appellant had filed a petition before the Idaho District Court, seeking full and permanent guardianship. During the pendency of those proceedings, the father traveled with the individual to Chennai, India, without the appellant’s knowledge, leading to legal action in both jurisdictions.

The appellant relied on the Idaho Court’s order, which had appointed her as the permanent legal guardian, and on multiple medical assessments establishing the individual's cognitive limitations. She argued that the High Court of Madras had erroneously dismissed her habeas corpus petition based solely on a brief oral interaction with the individual, without considering extensive medical evidence documenting his intellectual disability. The High Court had concluded that the individual was capable of making his own decisions and had willingly chosen to stay in India with his father.

The Supreme Court examined medical assessments conducted in both India and the United States, including reports from the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru. The Court recorded that "Aadith’s overall cognitive functioning is comparable to that of an 8-to-10-year-old child. Consequently, he lacks the ability to make complex, informed decisions independently." The NIMHANS assessment concluded that the individual had mild intellectual disability with an IQ score of 53 and required external assistance for major financial, social, and legal decisions.

The Court held that "in situations requiring higher-order reasoning, evaluation of multiple options, or consideration of long-term consequences, he would require external guidance and support. Any decisions made beyond his cognitive capacity may not be well-informed or thoroughly considered." Based on this evaluation, the Court determined that the High Court’s reliance on oral statements made by the individual was misplaced, as his cognitive impairment prevented him from fully comprehending the long-term implications of his statements.

Further, the Court noted that the Idaho District Court had already exercised jurisdiction over the guardianship matter and had determined, based on medical assessments, that the appellant was best suited to serve as the legal guardian. The Supreme Court recorded that "the principle of comity of courts must yield to the best interests and welfare of the individual, especially when the concerned foreign court has exercised jurisdiction in a matter affecting the rights of a vulnerable adult." The Court observed that the High Court had not examined the implications of the Idaho Court’s order or the evaluations submitted before it.

In considering the welfare of the individual, the Supreme Court also examined the implications of residence in India versus the United States. It recorded that the individual had spent the majority of his life in the U.S., was eligible for social security and medical benefits, and was previously enrolled in a transitional program to develop vocational skills. The Court found that his ongoing development had been disrupted by his removal to India, and that "a return to the environment where he received specialized care and education would best serve his long-term welfare."

Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed that the individual be repatriated to the United States under the guardianship of the appellant. It further ordered compliance with the directives of the Idaho District Court, which had vested full and permanent guardianship in the appellant. The Supreme Court stated that "the appellant, as the recognized legal guardian, shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the individual resumes his education, receives appropriate medical care, and is provided with support mechanisms suited to his cognitive condition."

Case Title: Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 299

Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 17281 / 2024

Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

[Read/Download order]