- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Daughter Being In Parents' Custody...
Daughter Being In Parents' Custody Doesn't Always Amount To Illegal Detention : Supreme Court In 'Spiritual Guru's Habeas Plea
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
1 Feb 2021 12:54 PM IST
The Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by a 'spiritual guru', challenging the verdict of the Kerala High Court which dismissed his habeas corpus petition seeking release of his 'spiritual live in partner' allegedly under illegal detention of her parents. The Court expressed disinclination to entertain the...
The Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by a 'spiritual guru', challenging the verdict of the Kerala High Court which dismissed his habeas corpus petition seeking release of his 'spiritual live in partner' allegedly under illegal detention of her parents.
The Court expressed disinclination to entertain the petition observing that the High Court has not found that the woman was under "illegal detention" of her parents. The bench observed that there was a "big difference between custody and detention" and that custody will not always amount to "illegal detention".
However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court to seek a finding on the question of illegal detention.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared on behalf of the petitioner, a 52-year old man who claimed to have renounced worldly life for spiritual practice. He claimed that the alleged detunu in the case, a 21-year old woman, was his 'yoga shishya' and 'spiritual partner'. The High Court dismissed the petition observing that the woman was of a "vulnerable mental state" and that the petitioner's credentials, which were enquired by the police, were not trustworthy.
"There is a big difference between custody and detention. If a daughter is said to be in her parents' custody, it does not mean that she is detained." CJI remarked at the outset.
The hearing began with Adv. Sankaranarayanan submitting that the Kerala High Court was wrong in observing that the girl was mentally ill. "She is a gold medalist in college. High Court comes to the conclusions based on its interactions, contrary to Mental Health Act. Credentials of the petitioner are not relevant for habeas. The Court dragged his reputation through mud." He submitted.
At this juncture, the CJI intervened and asked about the High Court's finding on the girl's condition. "Is she at liberty or locked up in her house?" CJI asked.
In response to this, Mr. Sankaranarayanan replied "Court refers to her complaints to the Human Rights Commission and police that she is under illegal detention."
He also referred to the relevant paragraphs from the Kerala High Court judgment about the girl's statements indicating that she was under illegal detention by her parents and that she was inclined in going with the petitioner.
"We are looking for illegal detention, which is the only consideration for a habeas corpus petition. If a person is of unsound mind, she will say many things. Mental soundness is one aspect. Illegal detention is another aspect. We see no finding that she is under illegal detention of her parents. Custody is different from detention." CJI observed.
The bench showed its reluctance in allowing the habeas corpus petition by observing that the judgment of the HC reveals that the girl was under the custody of her parents which does not amount to illegal detention.
After due discussion between the judges, CJI observed that the bench was not inclined to entertain the petition.
To this, Adv. Sankaranarayanan persuaded the bench "An adult cannot be under custody of another person. Parents cannot have her custody against he will. Court cannot come to a conclusion that she is mentally ill. That is against Mental Health Act. Only experts can do that."
"If an adult says she is under illegal detention, court has to release her", the senior counsel submitted.
But the CJI observed that the Court need not interfere if it has doubts about the adult's statements.
"There is a doubt about her perception", the CJI said.
Despite the submissions made by the petitioner counsel, the bench observed that there was no finding of illegal detention.
In view of this, the bench ordered "There is no clear cut finding that the girl is illegally detained by her parents. A finding of illegal detention is a sine qua non for the maintainability of a petition for habeas corpus. Petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the SLP and approach HC to seek review on the above point. Liberty granted. Petition dismissed as withdrawn."
High Court distinguished 'Hadiya Case'
The judgment authored by Justice Vinod Chandran referred to a passage from the Hadiya case where the Supreme Court observed that there was nothing to suggest that Hadiya suffered from any kind of "mental incapacity or vulnerability".
However, in the instant case, the bench opined, on the basis of its interactions with the woman, that the woman was of a vulnerable mental conditionThe High Court had called for a police report about the credentials of the petitioner. On local inquiry it was reported that there is no information of the petitioner having any followers. It is reported that the petitioner is not leading a socially acceptable life and has difficulty in explaining the means and goals of his spirituality. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not produce anything to prove his claim that he was a 'spiritual guru'.
The police also reported that the petitioner's mother expressed doubts about the spiritual activities of the petitioner and was not convinced about his so-called spiritual life. The police further reported that the petitioner was made accused in a case under POCSO registered in 2013, after a 14 year old girl accused him of sexually abusing him under the pretext of counselling. However during investigation she retracted from the allegation and since there was no factual evidence other than her statement, the petitioner was removed from the list of accused.
The High Court noted that the petitioner came in contact with the woman during psychiatric consultations which her parents initiated. The Court was not appreciative of the fact that the petitioner breached the trust placed on him by declaring his patient to be a "live-in partner".
"We were also of the opinion that the antecedents of the petitioner are not such as to trust him with the custody of a young girl of 21 on mere statement of she being tutored; by the petitioner, in spirituality. This is especially so when the parents of the subject had initially approached the petitioner with their daughter for psychiatric consultation and their trust in him as a Doctor and therapist was breached to the extent of the petitioner declaring his patient to be a live-in partner; when he himself was married with two children", the HC said.
