Supreme Court Rules Son with Cerebral Palsy Is Not Capable of Independent Decisions; Directs Return to US Under Mother’s Guardianship

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan heard an appeal arising from the High Court of Madras challenging its judgment that a twenty-two‑year‑old US citizen, diagnosed with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy and mild intellectual disability, was living in India with his father “consensually”. The appeal concerned custody, the scope of medical evidence on capacity, and whether the High Court erred in treating the major’s stated preference as decisive.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 09.08.2024 and directed that the appellant mother, who had been appointed full and permanent guardian by an Idaho court, would have sole custody. The Supreme Court concluded that the son, Aadith Ramadorai, “cannot make independent, legally‑binding decisions on his own” and that his “interests would be best served by continuing to reside in the US, alongside his younger brother, Arjun Ramadorai, and under the guardianship of the Appellant.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the event there is any confusion or doubt regarding a person’s capacity and ability to make independent decisions and if there is a definitive opinion on disability endorsed by a specialist, domain expert, or a doctor, the Court should give due credence to that opinion. If the expert’s report concludes that the mental or physical age of the person concerned is well below the age of majority, there can be no inference of any ‘implied’ or ‘express’ consent to any act which might have a substantive impact on the consenting person. Unless there are strong reasons to disbelieve an expert’s report to this effect, the Courts must be overly‑cautious in coming to a finding contrary thereto." The Court issued detailed directions including repatriation within 15 days, return of Aadith’s US passport by the Consulate General, and the dropping of contempt proceedings for substantial compliance with interim orders.

Background The dispute arose after Aadith, born in the United States in 2003 to parents who later divorced, travelled from the US to India with his father and paternal grandparents. The Idaho District Court had earlier dissolved the parents’ marriage in 2007, awarded joint custody when the children were minors and, following subsequent proceedings, appointed the mother as full and permanent guardian of Aadith on 09.04.2024. While guardianship proceedings were pending, Aadith remained in Chennai with his father. The mother filed a habeas corpus petition in the Madras High Court seeking Aadith’s custodial retrieval; the High Court examined Aadith orally and held there was no illegal detention, treating his stated wish to remain with his father as decisive.

On appeal, the mother challenged the High Court’s reliance on a brief oral interaction and urged the Court to accept expert assessments that Aadith had longstanding developmental disabilities and limited decision‑making capacity. The father contended that Aadith was competent to make his own choices and had expressed a wish to live in India.

To resolve conflicting positions on capacity, this Court directed a time‑bound multidisciplinary assessment at NIMHANS, Bengaluru. NIMHANS conducted psychological, speech and language, neurorehabilitation and psychosocial evaluations and produced a Comprehensive Assessment Report. The assessments found an overall functioning equivalent to that of an 8–10‑year‑old and concluded that Aadith had independent decision‑making abilities for basic activities but exhibited “significant limitations in making informed decisions concerning higher‑level activities of daily living, financial matters, and complex social and occupational responsibilities.” The report stated that he was “functioning at the level of about 8 to 10 years old child in general,” and recommended external guidance and supervised care for complex decisions.

Applying the parens patriae doctrine and relevant precedents on best interests, the Court weighed Aadith’s established life, specialised education and social supports in the US, the Idaho guardianship order, and the expert findings. Concluding that Aadith’s welfare would be best served by returning to the US to continue schooling and live with his brother under the mother’s guardianship, the Court directed the parties to facilitate his immediate repatriation, ordered exchange of contact details between the parents, and emphasised that neither parent should restrict access to the other.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 299 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 17281 / 2024) Case Title: Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. V. Mohana, Learned Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Ms. Liz Mathew, Learned Senior Counsel

New Delhi; March 3, 2025.