English
English
English
Supreme Court has overturned a previous decision that was harmful to a 12-year-old child’s mental health and was pronounced without communication with the child. Watch an in-depth analysis by veteran journalist Manoj Tibrewal Aakash.
Supreme Court shows Judicial humility
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a historic verdict that not only brought the human sensibilities of the judicial system to the center, but the Supreme Court itself, by overturning its old decision, showed that the judiciary does not shy away from introspection. The echo of this decision will be heard for a long time not only in the legal corridors but also in the field of social discourse. This decision is related to the ordeal of a 12-year-old child, who was mentally and emotionally broken after becoming a victim of bitterness between his parents.
Senior journalist Manoj Tibrewal Aakash said in his show 'The MTA Speaks' that in this child's case, the Supreme Court had earlier given custody to the father, but now the court has overturned that decision and handed over the custody to the mother. The most important thing in this entire episode was that the Supreme Court admitted that its previous order was harmful to the mental health of the child and it was pronounced without communicating with the child. The court also held that no decision related to the custody of children can be final and over time, depending on the circumstances, the court should review its orders.
This case pertains to Kerala, where a couple divorced after a few years of marriage. The child was born in 2012 and his parents separated when he was barely three years old. At the time of divorce, the family court had given the mother the right to primary care and custody of the child. But after the mother remarried in 2016, the situation became complicated. The father could not get any information about his son till the year 2019. Then the father approached the High Court and sought permanent custody of the child.
On 17 October 2023, the Kerala High Court granted permanent custody to the father. Challenging this order, the mother approached the Supreme Court, but in August 2024, the Supreme Court also upheld the decision of the High Court and handed over the child to the father. This is where the child's tragedy and the court's introspection began.
The child's mother then filed a review petition in the Supreme Court, attaching a medical report from the Christian Medical College in Vellore. This report stated that the child has 'separation anxiety disorder', that is, he experiences deep stress, fear and insecurity when separated from his mother. Mental health experts made it clear that the child's current condition reflects his sensory and emotional instability and he is in dire need of a stable, familiar and supportive environment.
The Supreme Court took this report seriously and admitted in the review proceedings that the earlier order was pronounced without adequate investigation of the child's psychological condition. The court said that the purpose of the law is not just to fulfill legal formalities, but to use judicial discretion to give a decision in the best interest of the victim - especially the child. In this entire case, the Supreme Court specifically commented that if the courts are deciding on the custody of children, they should not rely only on the arguments of the parents and the cross-examination of the lawyers, but should also give priority to the child's own feelings, fears, comfort and mental state. Especially in cases where the child feels that he is not comfortable in an unfamiliar environment.
The court made it clear in its revised decision that custody orders should not be "rigid". They should be "moulded" if the time and situation demand that the decision needs to be modified for the development, safety and mental balance of the child. On this basis, the court quashed the earlier order and handed over the custody of the child back to the mother and allowed the father to meet in person once a week and video call twice a week.
In this decision, the Supreme Court has shown a new sensitivity and judicial humanity. This clearly shows that the court is now willing to pay attention not just to legal arguments but also to the social and emotional reality that affects a child's life. This judgment has, in a way, given a place to the voice of children in the legal process - a voice that is often drowned out by the bitterness of parents and technical arguments in the court.
This judgment is a ray of hope for thousands of children who suffer mentally in their parents' divorce process and whose emotions often remain unspoken in legal papers. This review process of the Supreme Court has proved that the law can be flexible and the courts can admit their mistake and correct it if they want.
This judgment is also a symbol of judicial humility - where the apex court admitted that the earlier decision was based on incomplete information and needed correction. This is a positive sign for the Indian judicial system that it is willing to review its decisions by keeping in mind the human aspects as well, not just the technical aspects. This case is especially important because it made it clear that the Indian judiciary's view on child rights is changing.
Now this view is not limited to only "parental rights", but "child welfare" is considered paramount. These changes reflect the social responsibility of the Indian judicial system.
This decision also teaches us that after divorce, parents have to take legal action against each other.
The Government will have to be more cautious and sensitive towards the mental health and development of children than before. The mental stability and safety of the child is more important than the rights of the parents. And this is what the Supreme Court has also said clearly now.
This entire proceeding has become a symbol of the fact that the justice system is not just a tool for delivering judgments, but can also become a carrier of social and emotional justice. In such a situation, this decision not only brought relief to that child, but also gave a message to the entire society that the courts can also introspect, accept the mistake and most importantly - give priority to the future of the child.
