LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 03 March 2025

Does a pre-existing order of a Foreign Court granting guardianship govern an Indian court's decision, or must it yield to the best interests and welfare of the person concerned?

Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.
2025 INSC 299
Coram: Surya Kant; Dipankar Datta; Ujjal Bhuyan
🔖 Save this judgment📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

It must yield. The principle of comity of courts and a pre-existing order of a Foreign Court give way to the best interests and welfare of the person concerned, which is the sole and predominant criterion; the foreign order is merely one of the circumstances to be considered when assessing those interests.

Headnote

Habeas Corpus — Adult with intellectual disability — Capacity to give consent — Expert medical assessment — Parens patriae — Best interests and welfare — Comity of courts — Foreign guardianship order — Habeas Corpus — Capacity to consent — Definitive opinion on disability — Held: A definitive opinion on disability, endorsed by a specialist or doctor, placing a person's mental or physical age well below the age of majority forecloses any inference of implied or express consent. Courts must be overly-cautious before finding otherwise. (¶22) Habeas Corpus — Illegal detention — Oral interaction versus medical report — Held further: Courts may differ from an expert's report but cannot discard it as a whole for no rhyme or reason. Where reliability is doubted, an enquiry through a reputable medical institution must be ordered. (¶20) Parens patriae — Person incapable of independent decisions — Best interests and welfare — Held further: Once incapacity is established the Court assumes a parens patriae duty to decide what best serves that person's interests and welfare. Roots, education, support systems and family bonds are relevant. (¶24, 32) Comity of courts — Foreign guardianship order — Best interests prevail — Held further: A pre-existing order of a Foreign Court is merely one of the circumstances and must yield to the best interests and welfare of the person concerned. Appeal allowed; sole custody granted to the appellant. (¶31, 41)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 31In this vein, it is a settled position of law that the principle of comity of courts 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.[^7] Such cases must be decided on the sole and predominant criterion of ‘what would serve the interests and welfare’ of the minor.[^8] The pre-existing order of a Foreign Court is merely one of the circumstances to consider when assessing the best interests and welfare of the person concerned.[^9] This doctrine was evolved to protect children who may, unwittingly, become collateral damage in their parents’ legal disputes. It has gained significance over the past several years, owing to the frequency and ease of migration.

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
When an expert opinion places a person's mental or physical age well below the age of majority, can a court infer implied or express consent from that person to an act substantially affecting them?In a habeas corpus petition alleging illegal detention of a person with severe cognitive limitations, may a court decide capacity on a brief oral interaction and disregard the expert reports on record?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections