New Delhi: The Supreme Court, in a Monday order, invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction to unite two children separated from their adoptive parents, who are facing criminal prosecution in Telangana. The parents are accused of allegedly paying a tout to buy the children, in contravention of the statutory framework for adoptions.
A bench led by B.V. Nagarathna took an “empathetic” view in the case as it directed the state to return the children to the adoptive parents. The direction was issued even though a criminal probe is pending against the parents for allegedly violating the adoption rulebook.
The state has had the custody of the children since an investigation into the allegations of child trafficking began last year.
In its order, which came on the parents’ appeal, the bench observed that the children had lived with their adoptive parents for nearly 20 months before the state took their custody when the trafficking charges surfaced. In the interests of the children who had spent considerable time with their parents, the bench allowed the kids to return home.
The parents’ appeal was against a Telangana High Court order asking them to formally adopt the children while dismissing their plea to regain custody.
Over the last three months, this order is the second one where a court has provided relief to parents involved in an alleged child trafficking case. The ring was exposed following media reports of a doctor who was managing the sale of children in Telangana’s Medipally district. Earlier, in August, the Justice Nagarathna-led bench gave relief to four couples linked to the same case.
With Justice K.V. Vishwanathan as the other judge presiding over the case, the bench said the “ends of justice would be served in the instant case by directing return of the above-mentioned children to the adoptive parents.”
Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the court’s extraordinary jurisdiction, the bench said that its order is in the interest of children “owing to the bonding between the adoptive parents and the respective children”.
The court followed the “best interest” principle under Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJA). Repatriation and restoration with family members, who have surrendered or are in conflict with the law, is prioritised over the institutionalisation of a juvenile under this section.
As a safeguard, the bench, however, directed the member secretary of Telangana Legal Services Authority, or the district legal services committee—within whose jurisdiction the four adoptive parents concerned reside—to seek reports on the welfare and progress of the children every quarter from November 2025 on. It further said that the member secretary of either of the two authorities could inspect the home of the adoptive parents to prepare such reports.
All six cases at hand stem from an FIR registered last year in Telangana, kicking off the probe into the 44 alleged cases of child trafficking. According to the prosecution, a doctor, Shoba Rani, was conducting an illegal adoption and child trafficking racket. In her statement to the police, she disclosed the names and identities of the persons to whom she had sold the babies.
Among the two couples heard in SC Monday, one had paid Rs three lakh and the other Rs 4.3 lakh to Shoba Rani to purchase the kids.
In the top court, the couple’s lawyer beseeched the bench to give primacy to the welfare of the children, forcibly taken away and made to live in a government-managed shelter home.
The kids have been in the custody of the Child Welfare Committee since 28 May 2024.
Opposing the prayer, Telangana counsel and senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Shravan Kumar apprised the bench about the investigation and that the parents had confessed to having bought the babies.
Doubting the petitioners’ claim that they adopted the children born to unmarried women through a priest who was known to the biological mothers, the state argued that if this contention is accepted, then the parents should have known the names of the women and their whereabouts.
However, the lack of this information “clearly indicates that the narrative presented by the petitioner was fabricated and attempts to conceal the unlawful origin of the child,” submitted the state in its caveat that was filed in the top court.
Adoptions, the state contended, are guided by either the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA) or CARA regulations. But in the present case, there was non-compliance with the statutory process and procedural irregularity.
The cases had all the elements of a potential child trafficking case, the state said, expressing its concern.
When the bench voiced its intention of restoring the children to the couple, the state agreed to begin the proceedings under CARA or to look for potential adoptive parents for the children. The bench was told that the process was already on, and that the couple had to ensure the kids’ adoption.
However, the bench observed, “Law is one thing… justice is another,” and applying the same principles, like in its August direction, ordered the state to release the children from its custody.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: Morality, massagers & sex toys: Why Delhi HC called for fixed standards to end subjective opinions