Supreme Court Refers To Britney Spears Case In US While Hearing Habeas Plea For Release Of 21-Year Old Woman

The Supreme Court on Monday made a reference to Britney Spear's case in the United States of America where the pop singer is fighting a legal battle to end the conservatorship by her father.

A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana made this passing reference while hearing a habeas corpus petition seeking the release of a 21-year old woman from the alleged illegal detention of her parents.

The habeas petition was filed by a 42-year old man claiming to a be a 'spiritual guru', who said that the 21-year old woman was his disciple. According to the petitioner, the woman wanted to live with him for a 'spiritual life', and her parents were opposing her wishes. The Kerala High Court had dismissed his petition after expressing doubts about the decision making capacity of the woman. The High Court had also expressed doubts about the antecedents of the petitioner, after a preliminary enquiry by police.

In the special leave petition filed against the High Court verdict, the petitioner's counsel Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan argued that the High Court adopted a "paternalistic approach" by denying an adult girl woman right to take independent decisions for herself. The senior counsel also argued that the High Court judges erred in making an assessment of the mental capacity of the girl on the basis of their personal interaction with her, as the Mental Healthcare Act obligated them to refer the girl for medical examination.

The Supreme Court bench however expressed disinclination to entertain the petition, highlighting the "suspicious credentials" of the petitioner.

"This is not a matter where we can interfere. The girl is in a fragile state of mind. She is 21 years old. She does not know what she's doing. The mother of petitioner also says she doesn't trust his son. He is also involved in a POCSO case. How can we given this girl to this man?", CJI Ramana said.

In response, Shankaranarayanan submitted that the petitioner was not seeking that the woman be allowed to join him, but was only seeking for set her free from the "illegal detention" of her parents.

"It is a question of liberty of the girl", the senior counsel said.

At this point, the CJI made a reference to the Britney Spears's case in United States.

"One thing we want to tell. One week back we came across a case from America in an identical situation", the CJI said.

"The case relating to Britney Spears", Shankaranarayanan added.

"In USA unless an adult gives a consent they cant be given treatment. Now the entire family is on the roads because of that since a mentally unstable person cannot give consent", CJI said.

Britney Spears was placed under the conservatorship of her father in 2008 on ground of mental instability. Recently, she had requested a US Court to remove her father from conservatorship alleging abusive behaviour on his part. Her testimony in the court became a subject of widespread discussions, leading to a #FreeBritney campaign in social media.

"A person who is insane can't give consent. Which parent in India will say that their 21 daughter is insane? Even nobody will say it when there is actually a mental health issue. They will always try to coverup…that is the condition in India. Here both  parents are saying daughter has issues. In fact, the girl went to Petitioner for treatment and he started developing intimacy", the CJI added.

The other judges in the bench, Justices Hrishikesh Roy and AS Bopanna, also expressed their agreements with the views of the CJI.

Justice Roy told Shankaranarayanan that the legal arguments raised by him could be reserved for a "more reasonable case".

"The facts are such that they do not inspire our confidence. The antecedents of the man are such. The law points raised by you can be reserved for another case", Justice Roy said.

"This is a case where we're clear that the girl should not go with the petitioner. You want her to be let loose? It is better that she is with her parents", Justice Bopanna said.

Justice Bopanna also referred to a recent PIL which highlighted the issue of spiritual gurus. "There was a PIL where parents were concerned about such spiritual gurus", the judge said.

"You also know about the environment of some gurujis", the CJI added.

Ultimately, the bench proceeded to dispose the special leave petition by saying that it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court's judgment. However, the bench directed the Registrar General of the High Court to ask the concerned District Judge to interact with the girl and her parents after a month and send a report on the girl's condition to the Supreme Court.

"Taking into account peculiar facts and circumstance, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter. To satisfy ourselves, we request the registrar of the High Court to take steps to produce the girl before the District Judge concerned after one month and  the District Judge is directed to examine her and after interacting with her and her parents, the District Judge must send a report on the condition of the girl to be examined by this court", the bench said in the order.

The bench also clarified that the questions of law raised in the petition are left open.

(Case :Dr.Kailas Natarajan v District Police Chief and others).