SC Ticks Off Telangana Govt For Defiance

 Hyderabad: A battle between emotions and law came to a halt after the Supreme Court ticked off the state government for failing to obey its earlier order to hand over children rescued in the Medipally child trafficking case to adoptive parents.

The apex court on Monday stated that the handover was in the best interest of the children, while clarifying that the decision would not serve as a precedent for future adoption cases.

The order came during the hearing of a contempt petition filed by the parents, pointing out the review petition filed by the state challenging the Supreme Court’s August 12 ruling. The state’s women and child welfare department had failed to release the children into their care as ordered on August 14.

Expressing displeasure, the bench led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna said such conduct was unacceptable and directed the immediate transfer of custody to the adoptive parents. The apex court instructed the child welfare committee (CWC) to hand over the children, and custody was transferred on Monday.

It was a long-awaited reunion. Four children housed in Sishu Vihar were handed over to couples from Medchal-Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, Prakasam, and Nalgonda districts. A source said, “One of the children was just three months old when placed in the state home and is now over a year old. The other three were above 10 months at the time of separation. The episode was nothing less than a second life.”

The handover was deeply emotional. As soon as they saw their parents, the older children immediately recognised them, ran into their arms, and embraced them with wide smiles. Only the youngest, who had spent most of her life away from her parents, took some time to adjust.

Officials pointed out that timely efforts to rescue trafficked children, strengthening police networks to crack down on illegal rackets, and stricter instructions to Anganwadis and concerned departments are crucial to ensure a society free from child trafficking. They stressed that in such cases, the trauma is borne only by the child.

The four children in this case spent nearly 14 months away from their adoptive parents. Departments challenging the courts and delaying custody, officials noted, only prolong this trauma. Instead, lapses in CARA regulations must be addressed, and the adoption process should be streamlined to reduce waiting times from several years to one or two, encouraging more families to adopt legally.

The Supreme Court, while passing the order, specifically invoked its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution to protect the welfare of the children. The bench emphasised that this ruling should not be treated as a precedent; future cases of adoption and child trafficking must strictly follow the Juvenile Justice Act and CARA regulations.

Meanwhile, officials from the state said they would move a curative petition even though a review petition is still pending. CARA authorities, however, declined to comment on the Supreme Court’s order, given that the children were procured through a trafficking network outside the CARA adoption framework. “It is too soon to comment, but we are seeking legal opinion to ensure that this does not affect adoptions through legal means or encourage child trafficking,” an official said.