Summary and Analysis of Dasari Anil Kumar & Another vs The Child Welfare Project Director & Others

1. Heading of the Judgment

Dasari Anil Kumar & Another vs The Child Welfare Project Director & Others
(Civil Appeal Nos. of 2025, Supreme Court of India)

Citation:
Dasari Anil Kumar & Another vs The Child Welfare Project Director & Others, (2025) INSC 972, Supreme Court of India.

2. Relevant Laws and Sections

The judgment primarily interprets and applies the following laws:

• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015:
  Section 3: Lists "General Principles" guiding child welfare decisions, including:
  Best Interest of the Child (iv).
  Family Responsibility (v).
  Safety (vi).
  Institutionalization as Last Resort (xii).
  Repatriation and Restoration (xiii).
  Sections 36, 37, and 38: Procedures for child custody and inquiry by Child Welfare Committees (CWCs).

• Constitution of India:
  Article 142: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders for "complete justice."

3. Basic Case Details

• Parties:
  Appellants: Four sets of "adoptive parents" from Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.
  Respondents: Child Welfare Project Director, police authorities, and state agencies.

• Background:
  Police removed minor children from appellants’ custody (22 May 2024) based on FIR No. 579/2024, alleging illegal adoptions.
  Children were placed in state care (Sishuvihar, Hyderabad).

• Legal Journey:
  High Court (Single Judge): Ruled in favor of adoptive parents (23 September 2024), calling police action illegal.
  High Court (Division Bench): Reversed the Single Judge’s order (28 November 2024), upheld custody with CWCs.
  Supreme Court: Overturned the Division Bench’s judgment.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Core Issue

Whether police and child welfare authorities acted lawfully in removing children from their adoptive parents without following due process under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

1. Violation of Juvenile Justice Act Principles:
   The Court emphasized Section 3 of the Act, which prioritizes:
   The child’s best interest (e.g., maintaining family bonds).
   Family responsibility (biological/adoptive parents as primary caregivers).
   Institutionalization as a last resort.
   Removing children without exhausting family restoration options violated these principles.

2. Existing Parent-Child Bonds:
   Children had lived with adoptive parents for 3 months to 3 years.
   Sudden separation caused trauma, undermining their welfare.

3. Failure of Due Process:
   Authorities did not complete social investigations (under Sections 36–38) before removing the children.
   Custody transfer to state institutions was arbitrary and lacked legal basis.

4. Use of Article 142 for "Complete Justice":
   The Court invoked its extraordinary power under Article 142 to restore custody to adoptive parents, citing exceptional circumstances and the children’s immediate welfare needs.

Final Directions

1. Immediate Custody Restoration:
   Children to be returned to their adoptive parents by 14 August 2025 (5:00 PM).

2. Safeguards for Child Welfare:
   State/District Legal Services Authorities must:
   Monitor children’s welfare quarterly (starting November 2025).
   Appoint Child Welfare Experts for home visits.
   Submit reports to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC).

3. Clarification on Proceedings:
   The order does not hinder ongoing investigations or adoption formalities under the Juvenile Justice Act.

Key Outcome

The Supreme Court prioritized the emotional bonds and best interests of the children over procedural lapses, restoring custody to adoptive parents while instituting monitoring mechanisms for long-term welfare.