The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that the autonomous will of a minor, when freely expressed and free from coercion, constitutes a decisive factor in habeas corpus proceedings. This ruling reinforces the primacy of the child’s best interest over formal parental claims, setting a clear precedent for custody disputes involving minors in custody-related writs.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Parvati, filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that her 17-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Mst. 'D', was being illegally detained by the private respondent, Mukesh. The petition sought the immediate production and release of the minor from alleged unlawful custody. The respondents, including the State of Rajasthan and local police authorities, opposed the petition, asserting that the minor’s whereabouts were under investigation due to potential risks to her safety.
Procedural History
- The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking writ of habeas corpus.
- The Court directed the production of the minor before it, as mandated by established habeas corpus procedure.
- The minor was produced in court on 28 January 2026 and examined in chambers.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the release of the minor into her custody, arguing that the detention by the private respondent was unlawful and that the minor’s welfare required reunification with her mother.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the voluntary and uncoerced statement of a minor, aged nearly 18, expressing a desire to be with a person other than her parent, can override a parent’s claim to custody in a habeas corpus proceeding under Article 226.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and Gaurav Jain v. Union of India to argue that the welfare and autonomous choice of the minor, especially near majority, must be the paramount consideration. He emphasized that the minor had completed secondary education and was capable of forming an informed decision. The detention, he contended, lacked legal basis and violated the minor’s right to personal liberty under Article 21.
For the Respondent
The State and private respondent argued that the minor’s association with Mukesh raised concerns about potential exploitation and that the investigation into her circumstances was ongoing. They cited State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das to assert that courts must exercise caution in releasing minors without thorough inquiry into their safety. They requested further time for police verification.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted an in-camera interview with the minor, Mst. 'D', who clearly stated she was 17 and a half years old, had completed her secondary education, and wished to remain with the petitioner - her mother - without any pressure or coercion. The Court noted that the minor was articulate, composed, and demonstrated clear understanding of her situation.
"She has desired to go with the present petitioner. She further stated that she is not under any pressure to go with the present petitioner."
The Court rejected the State’s request for further investigation, holding that the minor’s statement, made in open court and unchallenged by any evidence of coercion, was sufficient to determine her wishes. It distinguished State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das by noting that case involved a younger child and allegations of trafficking, whereas here, the minor was nearly adult, educated, and expressed a clear, voluntary preference. The Court emphasized that personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right of a near-major to choose her living arrangement, provided it is free from exploitation or duress.
The Court further held that the State’s role in such matters is not to act as a custodian of parental authority but to safeguard the minor’s autonomy and well-being. The absence of any credible evidence of harm or illegal activity rendered the detention unjustified.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that a minor’s voluntary and uncoerced expression of desire to be with a parent overrides competing custody claims in habeas corpus proceedings, provided no evidence of exploitation exists. The Court directed the investigating agency to immediately hand over custody of the minor to her mother.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Minor's Voluntary Statement Is Conclusive
- Practitioners must prioritize obtaining and presenting the minor’s unscripted, in-court statement in habeas corpus matters.
- Courts will not defer to parental claims if the minor, especially near majority, expresses a clear, independent preference.
- Police investigations cannot indefinitely delay release when the minor’s statement is credible and unchallenged.
Article 21 Protects Near-Minors’ Autonomy
- The judgment extends the scope of Article 21 to include the right of minors aged 17 and above to make personal life choices, including residence.
- This aligns with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015’s emphasis on the child’s right to be heard.
- Lawyers should cite this case when opposing prolonged detention of near-major minors without concrete evidence of risk.
Custody Disputes Must Be Resolved Through Welfare, Not Formalism
- Habeas corpus is not a tool for enforcing parental rights but for protecting liberty.
- Courts must avoid treating minors as property to be transferred between adults.
- Legal arguments must center on the minor’s capacity, maturity, and freedom from coercion - not social norms or parental entitlement.
