2025
INSC 204
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE
SANJIV KHANNA, CJI. HON’BLE SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.)
SUSHANT SHARMA
Petitioner
VERSUS
U.T. CHANDIGARH &
ORS.
Respondent
Criminal
Appeal No. 655 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14618 of 2024)-Decided on
10-02-2025
Criminal
Constitution of India,
Article 226, 136 - Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890 - National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy,
Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 – Habeas corpus – Directions
issued - Habeas corpus disposed of by High Court holding ‘X’ is not being
illegally detained in his house inter alia allowing appellant to interact with
his son and passed certain other orders – As per interim order passed by Apex
Court petitioner, Sushant Sharma, will be allowed to interact and be with his
son and there is substantial compliance of the order - In order to prevent any
untoward incident, deem it appropriate to appoint Mr. ‘C’, learned Advocate-on-
Record, who is present in Court, as a Court Commissioner, who will oversee and
ensure the installation of CCTV cameras, with video- recording facility for a
period of 96 hours, at appropriate locations designated by him in the house - Appellant
has stated to have already moved before the concerned Guardianship Court, under
the Act, 2016 - There are civil suits pending inter-se the parties with regard
to certain other assets, etc. - The interim order dated 25.10.2024 passed by
this Court shall continue to operate till it is modified, vacated or affirmed
by the Court under the 2016 Act - Said Court to take up the proceedings for
hearing expeditiously – Made clear that the question of applicability of the
Act, 1999, and the rules and regulations framed thereunder has not been
examined and this issue is stated to be pending for examination in a writ
petition before the High Court - Also
directed that the respondents shall not raise any technical objection with
regard to the nomination for appointment of an attorney by the appellant.
(Para
2 to 9)
ORDER
1.
Leave granted.
2.
This is an unfortunate case where the father of ‘X’ (name suppressed) filed the
present appeal claiming that he is not being allowed to interact and meet with
‘X’. The impugned judgment dated 20.09.2024 referred to the report of the Court
Commissioner, who had interacted with ‘X’, etc. By the order dated 25.10.2024,
this Court has passed the following order:
“xxx xxx xxx
The petitioner,
Sushant Sharma, will be allowed to interact and be with his son.
However, the child
will not be allowed to be taken out of the country.
All other persons who
were meeting and interacting with the child earlier will also be permitted to
interact with him.
The assets belonging
to the child will not be alienated, transferred or encumbered till the next
date of hearing.
xxx xxx xxx”
3.
There has been substantial compliance with the aforesaid order though
applications have been filed making allegations and counter allegations. It is
submitted on behalf of respondent No. 4, Damini Goswamy, that she has not been
permitted to meet ‘X’. We would only observe that she may be permitted to meet
‘X’.
4.
In order to prevent any untoward incident, we deem it appropriate to appoint
Mr. Chritarth Palli, learned Advocate-on- Record, who is present in Court, as a
Court Commissioner, who will oversee and ensure the installation of CCTV
cameras, with video- recording facility for a period of 96 hours, at
appropriate locations designated by him in the house. The expenses for
installation of the CCTV cameras will be borne by respondent No. 3, Kalindi
Hamal. Mr. Chritarthi Palli, the Court Commissioner, will be paid appropriate
lodging and boarding expenses in addition to an amount of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one
lakh only), which amounts shall be paid by the appellant, Sushant Sharma.
5.
The appellant has stated to have already moved before the Guardianship Court,
Chandigarh under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, [For short, “2016 Act”.] where the
proceedings are pending.
6.
There are civil suits pending inter-se the parties with regard to certain other
assets, etc. The interim order dated 25.10.2024 passed by this Court shall
continue to operate till it is modified, vacated or affirmed by the Court under
the 2016 Act. We request the said Court to take up the proceedings for hearing
expeditiously. The Court would be entitled to take the help of Counselor(s), if
required and necessary.
7.
Further, we clarify that we have not examined the question of applicability of
the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and
Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999, and the rules and regulations framed
thereunder. This issue, it is stated, is pending for examination in a writ
petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
8.
It is also clarified that the observations made in this order and in the
earlier order dated 25.10.2024 are tentative and prima facie and the same will
not be treated as final and binding findings, as already recorded above. It is
open to the Guardianship Court under the 2016 Act or any other enactment, if
applicable, to modify, vacate or amend the directions. Further the aforesaid
directions will not, in any way, deter any other jurisdictional tribunal or
forum, where proceedings are pending, from passing orders in accordance with
law.
9.
It is also directed that the respondents shall not raise any technical
objection with regard to the nomination for appointment of an attorney by the
appellant, Sushant Sharma.
10.
Recording the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
11.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
12.
Leave granted.
13.
This is an unfortunate case where the father of the child (name suppressed)
filed the present appeal claiming that he is not being allowed to interact and
meet with the child. The impugned judgment dated 20.09.2024 referred to the
report of the Court Commissioner, who had interacted with the child, etc. By
the order dated 25.10.2024, this Court has passed the following order:
“xxx xxx xxx
The petitioner,
Sushant Sharma, will be allowed to interact and be with his son.
However, the child
will not be allowed to be taken out of the country.
All other persons who
were meeting and interacting with the child earlier will also be permitted to
interact with him.
The assets belonging
to the child will not be alienated, transferred or encumbered till the next
date of hearing.
xxx xxx xxx”
14.
There has been substantial compliance with the aforesaid order though
applications have been filed making allegations and counter allegations. It is
submitted on behalf of respondent No. 4, Damini Goswamy, that she has not been
permitted to meet the child.
15.
In order to prevent any untoward incident, we deem it appropriate to appoint
Mr. Chritarth Palli, learned Advocate-on- Record, who is present in Court, as a
Court Commissioner, who will oversee and ensure the installation of CCTV
cameras, with video- recording facility for a period of 96 hours, at
appropriate locations designated by him in the house. The expenses for
installation of the CCTV cameras will be borne by respondent No. 3, Kalindi
Hamal. Mr. Chritarthi Palli, the Court Commissioner, will be paid appropriate
lodging and boarding expenses in addition to an amount of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one
lakh only), which amounts shall be paid by the appellant, Sushant Sharma.
16.
The parties are stated to have already moved the Court under the Guardians
and Wards Act, 1890[For short, “1890
Act”.] where proceedings are
pending. There are civil suits pending inter-se the parties with regard to
certain other assets, etc. The interim order dated 25.10.2024 passed by this
Court shall continue to operate till it is modified, vacated or affirmed by the
Court under the 1890 Act. We request the said Court to take up the proceedings
for hearing expeditiously. The Court would be entitled to take the help of
Counselor(s), if required and necessary.
17.
Further, we clarify that we have not examined the question of applicability of
the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental
Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act,
1999, and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. This issue, it is
stated, is pending for examination in a writ petition before the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
18.
It is also clarified that the observations made in this order and in the
earlier order dated 25.10.2024 are tentative and prima facie and the same will
not be treated as final and binding findings, as already recorded above. It is
open to the Court under the 1890 Act or any other enactment, if applicable, to
modify, vacate or amend the directions. Further the aforesaid directions will
not, in any way, deter any other jurisdictional tribunal or forum, where
proceedings are pending, from passing orders in accordance with law.
19.
It is also directed that the respondents shall not raise any technical
objection with regard to the nomination for appointment of an attorney by the
appellant, Sushant Sharma.
20.
Recording the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
21.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
------