Supreme Court of India
Dasari Anil Kumar vs The Child Welfare Project Director on 12 August, 2025
2025 INSC 972
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.6322 OF 2025)
DASARI ANIL KUMAR & ANOTHER …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE CHILD WELFARE PROJECT DIRECTOR
& OTHERS …RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.4342 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.6426 OF 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.6605 OF 2025)
JUDGMENT
NAGARATHNA, J.
Signature Not Verified
Leave granted.
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2025.08.13
15:34:04 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 10
2. Being aggrieved by the common judgment dated 28.11.2024
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court for the State of
Telangana in Writ Appeal Nos.1265 of 2024, 1277 of 2024, 1267
of 2024, 1266 of 2024, the appellants respectively are before this
Court.
3. The appellants assailed the validity of the action of the police
authorities in taking away the custody of the minor children from
them as they claim to be the “adoptive parents” on the premise
that it is without authority of law. The details of the cases as
narrated by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal
Nos.1265 of 2024, 1277 of 2024, 1267 of 2024, 1266 of 2024 are
extracted as under:
“In W.A. No.1265 of 2024, it is the case of the
respondents No.1 and 2 that they are the adoptive
parents of one minor girl child, namely D. Maanvika, who
is aged about three years. It is their case that
respondents No.1 and 2 were informed through a
common friend that a nine days old baby girl is available
for adoption. The aforesaid respondents therefore
adopted the child on 30.03.2024, in accordance with the
provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
1956 (hereinafter referred to as, “the 1956 Act”).
In W.A.No.1277 of 2024, the respondent No.1 claims that
she has adopted a two days old baby girl, namely K.
Un1a Maheshwari, from her biological parents onPage 2 of 10
15.11.2021, as they were not in a position to bring up the
child.
In W.A.No.1267 of 2024, the respondents No. l and 2
assert they learnt through a common friend that a twenty
days old baby girl, namely S.Rishika, is put up for
adoption. Therefore, the said respondents adopted the
said child on 26.01.2024 from her biological parents.
In W.A.No.1266 of 2024, the respondents No.l and 2
claim to be adoptive parents of a minor child, namely
B.Sresta. It is their case that they adopted the aforesaid
two days old baby girl on 22.01.2024 from the biological
parents.”
4. In fact, there were petitioners, who are said to be “adoptive
parents” in nine Writ Petitions before the learned Single Judge of
the High Court, who sought a declaration that action of the
Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda and Station House Officer,
Medpally Police Station in forcibly and illegally taking the custody
of the minor children from the appellants and handing them over
to the Child Welfare Project Director and integrated Child
Protection Services, Sishuvihar, Hyderabad on the basis of the
First Information Report No.579 of 2024 dated 22.05.2024 was
illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 20 of the
Constitution of India.
Page 3 of 10
5. The learned single Judge by his common order dated
23.09.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.22020, 19623, 21108, 21980,
21981, 17040, 22026, 22429 and 23727 of 2024 allowed the Writ
Petitions and held that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for brevity, “the Act”),
did not apply to the fact situation of the cases and further the
action of the police authorities in taking the custody of the
children in question from the appellants herein who claim to be
adoptive parents of the children in question was illegal and
without authority of law. The learned single Judge of the High
Court granted liberty to the appellants herein to adopt the
procedure prescribed for continuation of the custody of the
children with them by validly executing adoption deeds or by
following any other procedure which would allow them to retain
the custody of the children forever.
6. Being aggrieved by the said common order dated 23.09.2024
passed by the learned single Judge, the Child Welfare Project
Director, Women, Children, Disabled And Senior Citizen and
Welfare Department, Medchal, Malkajgiri District and Directorate
Page 4 of 10
of Women Development and Child Welfare Department,
represented by its Director, Yusufguda Main Road,
Madhuranagar, Yusufguda, Hyderabad, had preferred the
appeals. There were also intervening application in the Writ
Appeals. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the
High Court for the State of Telangana disposed of the appeals by
setting aside the order of the learned single Judge and observed
in paragraphs 25 and 26 as under:
“25. The children in question are in the custody with the
Committee since 22.05.2024. Therefore, presently in the
obtaining factual matrix of the case, we are not inclined
to disturb the custody of the children on account of non-
compliance of Sections 36, 37 and 38 of 2015 Act. It is
stated before us that social investigation has been
completed.
26. However, it is necessary to issue the following
directions:
(1) The Committee shall pass an order in terms of Section
37 of the 2015 Act within a period of two weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of the order passed today.
(2) Some of the adoptive parents have filed an seeking
adoption of the children. The competent authority is
directed to decide the application seeking adoption within
a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
order passed today.
(3) Needless to state that the custody of the children shall
be subject to outcome of the aforesaid directions.”
Page 5 of 10
7. Hence, these appeals.
8. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the respondents and learned ASG at length.
We have perused the material on record.
9. The details of the “Adoptive parents” and the children are
provided by learned senior counsel for the appellants in a tabular
form, which is reproduced as under:
NAME AND DISTRICT & STATE
SL NAME OF DATE OF DATE OF
SLP No. OCCUPATION OF OF RESIDENCE OF
No. THE BABY ADOPTION CONFISCATION
PARTIES PARTIES
P1- Dasari Anil kumar
(Occupation – Assistant
Engineer- Scientific
Assistant, Bhabha Atomic
SLP (C) Prakasam District,
Research Centre) D. Maanvika
1. No. 6322 Andhra Pradesh 30.03.2024 22.05.2024
of 2025 State
P2- Bezawada Sathya
(Occupation- Customer
Associate, State Bank of
India)
Sole Petitioner – Kandala
Padma
(Occupation – Village
SLP (C) Organization Assistant)
Nalgonda District, K. Uma
2. No. 4342 15.11.2021 22.05.2024
Telangana State Maheshwari
of 2025 Husband – Late Kandala
Venkat Reddy (Passed
away on 05.05.2023, after
the adoption)
P1 – Shulla Mallesh
(Occupation – Senior
Graphic Designer, BRK
SLP (C) Medchal-Malkajgiri
News)
3. No. 6426 District, Telangana S. Rishika 26.01.2024 22.05.2024
of 2025 State
P2- Sowla Sruthi
(Occupation – Pharmacist
in Apollo Pharmacy)
P1 – B Santosh
(Occupation – Assistant
Project Manager, GMMCO
Limited)
SLP (C)
P2- Dasari Jagadeeswari Hyderabad,
4. No. 6605 B. Sresta 22.01.2024 22.05.2024
Devi Telangana State
of 2025
(Occupation- Quality
Designer – I, Electronic
Arts Games India Pvt.
Ltd.)
Page 6 of 10
10. Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the respondents, we find that ends of justice
would be served in the instant case by directing return of the
above-mentioned children to the “adoptive parents”. We also say
so by invoking our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution
in the peculiar facts of the case.
11. This is in the interest of the children owing to the bonding
between the “adoptive parents” and the respective children. This
is by following the principle of the best interest of the child;
principle of family responsibility; principle of safety, positive
measures, principle of Institutionalization as a measure of last
resort, principle of repatriation and restoration, which are also
enunciated as general principles in Section 3 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
12. For ease of reference, the aforesaid principles are extracted
as under:
“3. General principles to be followed in
administration of Act.- The Central Government, the
State Governments, the Board, the Committee, or other
agencies, as the case may be, while implementing the
provisions of this Act shall be guided by the following
fundamental principles, namely:
Page 7 of 10
xxx
(iv) Principle of best interest: All decisions regarding the
child shall be based on the primary consideration that
they are in the best interest of the child and to help the
child to develop full potential.
(v) Principle of family responsibility: The primary
responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the
child shall be that of the biological family or adoptive or
foster parents, as the case may be.
(vi) Principle of safety: All measures shall be taken to
ensure that the child is safe and is not subjected to any
harm, abuse or maltreatment while in contact with the
care and protection system, and thereafter.
(vii) Positive measures: All resources are to be mobilised
including those of family and community, for promoting
the well-being, facilitating development of identity and
providing an inclusive and enabling environment, to
reduce vulnerabilities of children and the need for
intervention under this Act.
xxx
(xii) Principle of institutionalisation as a measure of last
resort: A child shall be placed in institutional care as a
step of last resort after making a reasonable inquiry.
(xiii) Principle of repatriation and restoration: Every child
in the juvenile justice system shall have the right to be
re-united with his family at the earliest and to be
restored to the same socio-economic and cultural
status that he was in, before coming under the purview
of this Act, unless such restoration and repatriation is
not in his best interest.”
Page 8 of 10
13. In the circumstances, we direct the respondent-authorities
to handover the custody of the children to the respective
“adoptive parents” on or before 14.08.2025 by 05:00 PM.
14. However, as a safeguard and in the best interest of the
children, we direct that the Member Secretary of the State Legal
Services Authority and/or the Member Secretary of the District
Legal Services Committee, within whose jurisdiction the “adoptive
parents” reside to seek reports on the welfare and progress of the
child from the respective “adoptive parents” on a quarterly basis
starting from November, 2025 onwards. The Member Secretary of
the State Legal Services Authority and/or the Member Secretary
of the District Legal Services Committee will also be at liberty to
depute a Child Welfare Expert to inspect the home where the
child and the “adoptive parents” reside. This is to ensure the
welfare and progress of the children who have been returned to
the “adoptive parents”.
15. We again clarify that we have passed the aforesaid order in
the best interest of the children concerned in the instant case as
they have been with their adoptive parents for a few months upto
Page 9 of 10
three years in these cases.
16. A copy of the said report may also be submitted to the
jurisdictional Child Welfare Committee.
17. It is needless to observe that the aforesaid order has been
passed not only in the best interest of the children concerned, but
also by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to
do complete justice in the matter.
18. It is also needless to observe that this order would not come
in the way of any other proceeding that has been initiated by the
respondent(s)-authorities.
The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
……………………………, J.
[B. V. NAGARATHNA]
……………………………, J.
[K.V. VISWANATHAN]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 12, 2025.
Page 10 of 10