Supreme Court of India· 03 March 2025

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?

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

No. Courts are within their rights to reach a finding distinct from an expert's report, but cannot discard the expert's opinion as a whole for no rhyme or reason. If the reliability of the report is doubted, the court ought to order an enquiry through a reputable medical institution rather than dismiss the scientific assessment.

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 19It is pertinent to note that the report and addendum of the Evaluation Committee were brought on the record of the High Court, to help them decide whether Aadith was living consensually in India. However, the Impugned Judgement has not dealt with the medical assessments or school records in any capacity. In fact, the High Court has passed its judgement simply based on a few minutes of oral interaction with Aadith. In this regard, we are constrained to hold that the High Court’s decision was passed in haste, without fully delving into the nuances of the matter.

Paragraph 20In our considered view, even though Courts are well 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. Given that the dispute before the High Court concerned the sensitive and complex issue of alleged illegal detention of a person with severe cognitive limitations, the High Court ought to have considered and given due credence to the Evaluation Committee’s report. If the High Court had any doubt as to the reliability of the report and its conclusions, it ought to have ordered an enquiry through a reputable medical institution. Dismissing all aspects of scientific assessment in a highly specialized and niche area of medicine was misconceived and ill-founded. As such, the Impugned Judgement does not enlighten us as to Aadith’s decision-making abilities.

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?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?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections