Court Shouldn’t Discard Expert’s Opinion Regarding Child’s Decision-Making Capacity Merely Based On Direct Interaction: Supreme Court
Introduction
The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of expert medical assessments in determining the capacity of individuals with disabilities to make independent decisions. In a recent judgment, the court ruled that a child’s decision-making capacity should not be determined solely based on direct interaction with the child, but rather on expert medical assessments.
The Case
The case in question was between Sharmila Velamur and V. Sanjay and Ors., filed by the Appellant-mother, who sought custody of her 22-year-old child, who had cognitive abilities equivalent to an 8-10-year-old child. The child’s cognitive abilities were determined through medical reports from NIMHANS, Bengaluru, and the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, which concluded that the child had a cognitive functioning level tantamount to an 8-10-year-old child.
Decision
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, which had denied custody to the Appellant-mother based on a brief oral interaction with the child. The court ruled that a brief oral interaction with a child lacking independent decision-making capacity cannot justify granting custody to the father when expert medical reports clearly establish the child’s inability to make decisions regarding long-term residence and financial matters.
Expert’s Opinion is the Key
The court emphasized that the expert’s report is the key to determine the child’s decision-making capacity. If an expert report determines that a person’s mental or physical age is significantly below the age of majority, no ‘implied’ or ‘express’ consent can be inferred for any action that may have a substantive impact on them.
Court’s Ruling
The court ruled that even though courts have the right to come to a finding distinct from an expert’s report, they cannot discard the expert’s opinion for no rhyme or reason. In the case of a disputed issue, such as the alleged illegal detention of a person with severe cognitive limitations, the court should consider and give due credence to the expert’s report.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of expert medical assessments in determining the capacity of individuals with disabilities to make independent decisions. The court’s ruling emphasizes that the expert’s opinion should be given due credence, and a brief oral interaction with a child should not be used to determine their decision-making capacity. The judgment is a significant step towards ensuring the protection of the rights of individuals with disabilities.
Key Points to Remember
- Expert’s Opinion is Paramount: The court’s ruling emphasizes the importance of expert medical assessments in determining the capacity of individuals with disabilities to make independent decisions.
- Brief Oral Interaction is Insufficient: A brief oral interaction with a child lacking independent decision-making capacity should not be used to determine their decision-making capacity.
- Custody Decisions Should be Based on Expert Report: Custody decisions should be based on expert medical reports, rather than brief oral interactions with the child.
- Court’s Ruling: The court’s ruling emphasizes the importance of considering and giving due credence to expert opinions in cases involving individuals with disabilities.
References
- Sharmila Velamur Versus V. Sanjay and Ors. (2025) LiveLaw (SC) 277
- NIMHANS, Bengaluru, Report
- Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Report
About the Author
- Sharmila Velamur Versus V. Sanjay and Ors. is a significant case that highlights the importance of expert medical assessments in determining the capacity of individuals with disabilities to make independent decisions. The case is a reminder that courts should not discard expert opinions and should give due credence to expert reports, especially in cases involving individuals with severe cognitive limitations.
Live News Daily is a trusted name in the digital news space, delivering accurate, timely, and in-depth reporting on a wide range of topics.