Why Supreme Court ordered repatriation of a US citizen with intellectual disability

The Supreme Court recently issued directions so that a 22-year-old American citizen with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy, who was brought to India by his father amid a guardianship battle, is repatriated to the United States of America (US) to reside with his mother and younger brother..A three-judge Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan found that his cognitive functioning was comparable to that of a child aged about 8 to 10 years.It proceeded to hold that his best interests would be served by his returning to the US, where he would have access to specialized education, social security benefits, and vocational training..The top court also criticized the Madras High Court for failing to order an independent medical evaluation before ruling on his custody, and instead only relying on the 22-year-old's oral statements. "The High Court’s decision was passed in haste, without fully delving into the nuances of the matter," the Supreme Court said. .The High Court had earlier relied on an oral statement by which the 22-year-old man expressed his preference to stay with his father.The Supreme Court, however, noted that the High Court disregarded crucial medical reports, including an Evaluation Committee report from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. It strongly criticized this approach."The High Court has passed its judgment simply based on a few minutes of oral interaction... Dismissing all aspects of scientific assessment in a highly specialized and niche area of medicine was misconceived and ill-founded," the Court opined. .The Bench also relied on a report by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), which detailed that while the man could manage basic daily tasks, he struggled with financial transactions, long-term planning, and recognizing potential risks in social situations. The top court found that these limitations significantly impacted his ability to make informed choices about his future."His overall cognitive functioning is comparable to that of an 8-to-10-year-old child. Consequently, he lacks the ability to make complex, informed decisions independently," the report had said.This led the Supreme Court to dismiss the argument that the man had voluntarily chosen to stay with his father in India..The Court also examined the conditions of his stay in India and found that he had been removed from the US while still enrolled in a vocational program designed to support individuals with similar conditions. The Bench noted that in the US, he had access to structured education, specialized healthcare, and financial benefits under government schemes, which were absent in India. The Court held that his best interests would be served by allowing him to return and continue his education in a familiar environment alongside his mother and younger brother, who was also suffering from an intellectual disability. "The brothers share certain unique characteristics which perhaps help them understand, relate to, and lean on each other. This emotional relationship, in our considered opinion, is the foundational strength of their self-confidence, sense of security and all other kinds of support, which they are unlikely to receive elsewhere, outside of close family," the Court said..The judgment also emphasized that while Indian courts should not blindly follow foreign court orders, they must assess cases based on independent reasoning. In this case, it found that an Idaho court’s ruling granting full guardianship to the mother was based on medical assessments and was well-founded."The principle of comity of courts and a pre-existing order of a Foreign Court must yield to the best interests of the child, especially when the Court has decided to conduct an elaborate enquiry in this regard," the Court noted..The Bench also pulled up the father for failing to comply with its previous orders, which had directed him to facilitate communication between the mother and son. It took serious note of the fact that despite clear instructions, the father restricted access and did not adhere to the temporary custody arrangement ordered by the Court..Ultimately, the Court ordered that the 22-year-old be placed in his mother’s custody immediately and directed his return to the US within 15 days.It also directed the US Consulate-General in Chennai to facilitate the process by restoring his travel documents. At the same time, it clarified that the father remains an integral part of his son’s life and must continue to be involved..Senior Advocate V Mohana and Advocate Mayank Pandey represented the appellant, the man's mother. Senior Advocate Liz Mathew and Advocate Lzafeer Ahmad represented the father. .[Read Judgement].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.