Holding

The Supreme Court held that, in view of the best‑interest of the child and the general principles under Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the children must be returned to their adoptive parents, and the Court may exercise its powers under Article 142 to do so.

Summary

The appellants, who had adopted four minor girls under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, had their custody seized by police on the basis of an FIR and the children were placed under the Child Welfare Project Director. The appellants challenged the police action, arguing it was illegal and violated Articles 14 and 20 of the Constitution. The High Court initially set aside the police action but the Division Bench later reinstated the custody with the Child Welfare Committee, directing compliance with Sections 36, 37 and 38 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. On appeal, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 and held that the best‑interest principle, family responsibility and other general principles under Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act required the children to be returned to their adoptive parents. The Court ordered the respondents to hand over custody by 14 August 2025 and directed quarterly welfare reports to be filed by legal services authorities. The appeals were consequently disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the police action of taking custody of the children from the adoptive parents was lawful under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Constitution.
Whether the best‑interest of the child principle under Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act mandates the return of the children to the adoptive parents.
Whether the Supreme Court can invoke Article 142 to override procedural requirements of the Juvenile Justice Act in this context.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 142, s. Article 20
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015s. 3, s. 36, s. 37, s. 38

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the custody of the minor children in question ought to be handed over to the appellants-adoptive parents. Headnotes† Custody – Of minor children – Principle of best interest of children – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of s.3 – Constitution of India – Art.142 – Custody of the minor children was taken away from the appellants-adoptive parents by the Police based on an FIR and they were handed over to the Child Welfare Project Director and Integrated Child Protection Services –

Subjects

Custody of minor childrenAdoptive parentsBest interest of the childFamily responsibilitySafetyPositive measuresInstitutionalisation as a measure of last resortRepatriation and restorationJuvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015Article 142 of the Constitution of IndiaQuarterly welfare reports

Judgment

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 777 : 2025 INSC 972

Dasari Anil Kumar & Another
v.
The Child Welfare Project Director & Others
(Civil Appeal No. 10544 of 2025)
12 August 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the custody of the minor children in question ought to be
handed over to the appellants-adoptive parents.

Headnotes†
Custody – Of minor children – Principle of best interest of
children – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 – s.3 – Constitution of India – Art.142 – Custody of the
minor children was taken away from the appellants-adoptive
parents by the Police based on an FIR and they were handed
over to the Child Welfare Project Director and Integrated Child
Protection Services – Challenged – Single Judge of the High
Court held the action of the police authorities as illegal and
without authority of law – Order set aside by Division Bench –
Interference with:
Held: Children concerned have been with their adoptive parents for
a few months upto three years in these cases – In the best interest
of the children and also invoking powers u/Art.142, Constitution of
India, respondent-authorities are directed to handover the custody
of the children to the respective “adoptive parents” owing to the
bonding between them – 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 s.3, Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Further directions
also issued to the concerned authorities as a safeguard and in the
best interest of the children, to seek reports on the welfare and
progress of the children from the respective “adoptive parents” on
a quarterly basis. [Paras 10, 11, 13-15]

* Author
778 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

List of Acts
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Custody of minor children; Adoptive parents; Custody of minor
children taken away from adoptive parents; Principle of best
interest of children; Principle of family responsibility; Principle of
safety, positive measures; Principle of Institutionalization; Principle
of repatriation and restoration; Bonding between the adoptive
parents and the children; Custody of minor children handed
over to adoptive parents; Return of the children to the adoptive
parents; Adoption; Child Welfare Committee; Child Welfare Expert;
Reports on welfare and progress of the children to be sought on
quarterly basis; Powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India invoked; Section 3, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015; Women Development and Child Welfare
Department.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10544
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2024 of the High Court
for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad in WA No. 1265 of 2024
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 10545, 10546 and 10547 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv., M Srinivas R Rao, Abid Ali Beeran
P, Sarath S Janardanan, Saswat Adhyapak, Ms. Namita Kumari.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G., Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Sr. Adv.,
Sravan Kumar Karanam, Ms. Neha Rai, Ms. M. Harshini, Kumar
Abhishek, Rupesh Kumar, Sachin Sharma, Prahlad Singh, Pratyush
Shrivastava, Samarvir Singh, Shashank Bajpai, Shubhendu Anand,
Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Ms. Devina Sehgal,
M. Srikanth Varma.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 779

Dasari Anil Kumar & Another v.
The Child Welfare Project Director & Others

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Nagarathna, J.

Leave granted.
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 on 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.
780 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
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 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
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 781

Dasari Anil Kumar & Another v.
The Child Welfare Project Director & Others

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.”
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:
DISTRICT &
NAME AND
SL SLP STATE OF NAME OF DATE OF DATE OF
OCCUPATION OF
No. No. RESIDENCE THE BABY ADOPTION CONFISCATION
PARTIES
OF PARTIES
P1- Dasari Anil
kumar
(Occupation –
Assistant Engineer-
Prakasam
SLP Scientific Assistant,
District,
(C) No. Bhabha Atomic D.
1. Research Centre) Andhra 30.03.2024 22.05.2024
6322 of Maanvika
2025 Pradesh
P2- Bezawada
State
Sathya
(Occupation-
Customer Associate,
State Bank of India)
782 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

DISTRICT &
NAME AND
SL SLP STATE OF NAME OF DATE OF DATE OF
OCCUPATION OF
No. No. RESIDENCE THE BABY ADOPTION CONFISCATION
PARTIES
OF PARTIES
Sole Petitioner –
Kandala Padma
(Occupation –
SLP Village Organization Nalgonda
(C) No. Assistant) District, K. Uma
2. 15.11.2021 22.05.2024
4342 of Husband – Late Telangana Maheshwari
2025 Kandala Venkat State
Reddy (Passed away
on 05.05.2023, after
the adoption)
P1 – Shulla Mallesh
(Occupation – Senior
Graphic Designer, Medchal-
SLP
BRK News) Malkajgiri
(C) No.
3. District, S. Rishika 26.01.2024 22.05.2024
6426 of P2- Sowla Sruthi Telangana
2025
(Occupation – State
Pharmacist in Apollo
Pharmacy)
P1 – B Santosh
(Occupation –
Assistant Project
Manager, GMMCO
SLP Limited)
Hyderabad,
(C) No. P2- Dasari
4. Telangana B. Sresta 22.01.2024 22.05.2024
6605 of Jagadeeswari Devi State
2025
(Occupation- Quality
Designer – I,
Electronic Arts
Games India Pvt.
Ltd.)

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,
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 783

Dasari Anil Kumar & Another v.
The Child Welfare Project Director & Others

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:
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
784 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

was in, before coming under the purview of this Act, unless
such restoration and repatriation is not in his best interest.”
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 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.

Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey