The Orissa High Court held that once a minor girl—alleged to be a victim and presently pregnant—has been rescued and placed into a safe home under the supervision of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) following due process, and where both the petitioner and minor object to a medical examination, it is appropriate for the court to decline further habeas corpus relief. This decision affirms the statutory role of the CWC and the procedural finality of its custody orders, reinforcing the CWC’s primacy in such child protection matters. The judgment is binding on subordinate courts in Odisha and serves as persuasive authority for cases involving disputed custody and rescue of minor victims under BNSS and child welfare statutes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPCRL/49/2025 of SOFINA BIBI Vs STATE OF ODISHA |
| CNR | ODHC010304142025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE HARISH TANDON (Chief Justice) |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN (concurring) |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice Harish Tandon & Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure / Child Protection |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that once the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) lawfully takes custody of a minor who has been rescued and placed into a safe home, the protection and welfare of the child are considered adequately secured. Relief under habeas corpus becomes redundant in such circumstances, especially if the petitioner or guardian impedes statutory procedures like medical examination. The CWC is recognised as the competent authority for determining interim custody and well-being. The conflicting conduct of seeking rescue while resisting statutory welfare measures undermined the purpose of the writ. Therefore, no further court intervention is warranted once CWC actions comply with statutory norms. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The minor girl was missing; after intervention and directions from the Court, she was rescued and produced before the CWC. The CWC placed her in a juvenile home. Despite the apparent pregnancy of the minor, the petitioner (mother) and the girl resisted medical examination. The writ petition sought her rescue and retrieval. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Odisha |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, child protection proceedings in similar factual settings |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clarifies that habeas corpus relief may be denied once the minor is in the lawful custody of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), and CWC has assumed responsibility for her protection and welfare.
- Lawyers should note the precedence given to CWC proceedings—once CWC acts within statutory parameters, parallel or further habeas corpus proceedings may be considered redundant.
- Medical examination aspects: If the petitioner or minor resists statutory welfare procedures (such as medical examination where pregnancy is apparent), this resistance may weigh against further court intervention.
- The conflicting actions of petitioners—seeking intervention yet resisting statutory welfare procedures—may be adverse to their relief in similar matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that, following its orders, the minor had been rescued and produced before the CWC, which then placed her into a safe home as per child protection law.
- The Advocate General and State authorities demonstrated compliance with the Court’s directions.
- Resistance by the petitioner and victim to the required medical examination was found incongruous, given their seeking of judicial intervention for the girl’s welfare and rescue.
- The Court held that, once the CWC has lawfully taken custody and has the matter “in seisin,” further court direction for personal production of the child or for additional relief under habeas corpus is unnecessary.
- It reaffirmed the statutory role and primacy of the CWC in custody and welfare of rescued minors.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought rescue and retrieval of the minor daughter, allegedly a victim.
- Informed the Court about denial of medical benefits at the Anganwadi Centre on grounds of minority and apparent pregnancy.
- Objected to the medical examination of the minor.
Respondent (State)
- Stated that all possible steps were being taken to rescue the minor.
- Reported successful rescue and production before the CWC.
- Handed over instructions indicating the minor’s voluntary appearance before the police and her placement in a juvenile home by the CWC.
Factual Background
The minor daughter of the petitioner (Sofina Bibi) was missing. The petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking her rescue. During the proceedings, the girl was located and, after voluntarily presenting herself at the police station, was produced before the Child Welfare Committee. The CWC recorded statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and placed her in a juvenile home. Both the petitioner and minor girl resisted medical examination, despite indications of pregnancy.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court refers to offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in the context of the minor’s pregnancy.
- The process undertaken involved recording statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), confirming adherence to statutory procedures.
- The statutory authority and functional primacy of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) in matters relating to the protection and welfare of rescued or vulnerable minors was reaffirmed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment; both judges issued the order jointly.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law regarding the authority of the CWC in protection and custody of minors is reaffirmed.
Citations
No SCC, AIR, MANU or neutral citations or paragraph numbers are specified in the judgment.