Orissa High Court affirms that the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) holds effective custody and control over care and protection of minor victims, rendering further judicial intervention unwarranted once statutory proceedings are in place; the judgment upholds existing protocol and is binding on subordinate courts and authorities handling child victim rescue and protection under relevant 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 | Hon’ble Chief Justice Harish Tandon; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Hon’ble Chief Justice Harish Tandon & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Orissa |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure; Protection of Children |
| Questions of Law | Whether refusal by a minor’s guardian or the minor to medical examination can prevent or delay statutory rescue, protection, or investigation by CWC and authorities under POCSO Act and related procedures. |
| Ratio Decidendi | Upon rescue of a minor and production before the CWC, the statutory mechanism governs further steps concerning care and protection. Resistance by the guardian or minor to procedures such as medical examination does not negate the authority of the CWC or the State to act in the best interests of the child. Once the CWC has taken custody and is in seisin of the matter, judicial intervention by way of a writ of habeas corpus is unwarranted. The High Court emphasizes that the welfare of the minor is to be preserved through statutory institutions rather than continued court-supervised custody. No further direction for personal appearance before the court is required once the CWC assumes control. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Minor girl, reportedly pregnant, was rescued and produced before the CWC after police intervention following concerns by her mother (the petitioner). Both mother and daughter resisted medical examination. The CWC placed the minor in a safe home after statutory recording of statements. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Statutory provisions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012, and procedures of the CWC as per the BNSS. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities/committees handling child rescue and protection in Orissa |
| Persuasive For | CWC, Investigating Officers, and potentially persuasive for other High Courts in similar matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Court clarifies that resistance by the petitioner (guardian) or the minor to medical examination does not undo or invalidate statutory custody, protection, and investigation steps by the CWC.
- Once the CWC is in seisin and the child is placed in a safe home, further judicial directions seeking personal presence are unnecessary.
- Reinforces that statutory procedures under the POCSO Act prevail over contrary wishes of the petitioner/guardian after rescue and statutory production of the child.
- Affirms that the welfare and interest of the minor remain paramount under statutory mechanisms, not subject to contest or delay due to opposition by the petitioner.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the conduct of the investigation and the steps taken by authorities, including intervention by the Advocate General to ensure rescue and protection of the minor.
- Upon being apprised that the CWC had taken the minor into custody after the girl’s voluntary appearance and after recording statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Court held that the statutory authority with CWC supersedes further judicial intervention.
- Objection by the petitioner and minor to medical examination, even where pregnancy was apparent, was noted as paradoxical in light of the habeas corpus plea for rescue, but did not detract from the CWC’s statutory responsibility.
- The High Court concludes that the CWC, being in seisin and having custody, is competent to ensure the minor’s well-being without further orders from the writ court. Thus, the writ of habeas corpus was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought rescue and retrieval of her minor daughter through writ of habeas corpus.
- Opposed medical examination of the minor girl after her rescue.
Respondent (State)
- Stated that the minor had been rescued and produced before the CWC as per protocol.
- Confirmed that the CWC took custody of the girl and she was placed in a safe home.
- Submitted that police and authorities have complied with statutory duties and extended all possible steps for the minor’s welfare.
Factual Background
The petitioner, mother of a minor girl, approached the Court seeking rescue and retrieval of her daughter, alleging that the minor was pregnant and denied admission at an Anganwadi Centre for medical benefits due to her age. Following several directions by the Court, the investigating officer rescued the minor, who voluntarily appeared before the police and was subsequently produced before the Child Welfare Committee. Despite resistance by both the mother and the minor to a medical examination, the CWC placed the child in a safe home after statutory procedures.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court noted procedures under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
- Referred to the recording of statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), observing due process in rescue and custody of the minor through the CWC.
- The judgment affirms the supremacy of statutory bodies and procedure over objections by guardians once a child is produced before the CWC, in accordance with legal mandates.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Court affirms statutory protocols and existing law regarding rescue, production, and protection of minor victims.