Setting aside the Telangana High Court’s order, the Court held that giving a child in adoption due to poverty does not automatically amount to trafficking; CWC directed to hand over custody, while probe into alleged trafficking of other children remains unaffected
New Delhi, Sept. 17, 2026: The Supreme Court on Friday restored the custody of a minor child to his adoptive parents, ruling that the mere fact that a biological mother gave the child in adoption because of financial constraints cannot, by itself, create a presumption that the child was “sold.”
A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside the Telangana High Court’s order dated June 12, 2025, which had refused to interfere with the Child Welfare Committee’s custody of the child. The High Court had held that the child was in the “safe custody” of the Committee under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and had also noted that the adoption did not appear to be in accordance with the statutory framework or through the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA).
The Supreme Court, however, took a different view on the facts placed before it. The Court noted that the biological mother’s identity was undisputed and that she had given the child in adoption because she was unable to take care of the child due to financial hardship. The Bench observed that such circumstances, by themselves, do not justify a presumption that the child was sold to the adoptive parents.
The Court also recorded that there was no allegation that the adoptive parents had failed to take due care of the child. In these circumstances, it found no basis to continue the child’s custody with the Child Welfare Committee.
Accordingly, the Court directed the concerned Child Welfare Committee, Shishu Griha, Hyderabad, to hand over custody of the child to the appellant adoptive parents.
At the same time, the Supreme Court clarified that its order would not affect any pending investigation relating to other children who are alleged to have been trafficked. The Bench made it clear that it was not expressing any view on those separate matters.
The appeal was thus allowed and disposed of, along with all pending applications.
Bottom Line:
Habeas corpus for custody of minor child - Mere giving of child in adoption by biological mother due to financial inability would not ipso facto lead to presumption that child was sold - When child was in care of adoptive parents and there was no neglect, custody directed to be restored to adoptive parents, while leaving pending investigation regarding alleged trafficking of other children untouched.
Statutory provision(s): Article 32/226 of the Constitution of India, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Mohammed Akbar v. State of Telangana, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2983595
