Introduction:

In the case of Mayank Ojha (Minor) Through His Natural Guardian Mother Shashi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the Allahabad High Court examined a sensitive issue concerning the maintainability of a writ of habeas corpus where the custody of a minor child had been decided by a Child Welfare Committee (CWC) under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi ruled that such a writ is not maintainable when the custody of a child is the result of a judicial order passed by a competent authority such as the CWC. The petitioner, the biological mother of an 11-year-old boy, approached the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production and release of her son from a children’s home in Lucknow. She contended that her son was being unlawfully detained and deprived of her natural guardianship rights, asserting that as his mother, she was entitled to his custody.

During the proceedings, the State produced the child before the Bench in compliance with the Court’s directive. Upon interaction, the judges found the child to be bright, confident, and mentally sound, with a clear understanding of his situation. The child categorically refused to accompany his mother, stating that she had abandoned him when he was merely two years old and that he had no wish to live with her or with his father. He further expressed contentment with his current stay at the children’s home, where he was studying in a reputed school and being well looked after. The Bench observed that the child appeared emotionally stable and satisfied with his present living arrangement, which was indicative of a safe and nurturing environment.

Arguments:

The father, who was arrayed as one of the respondents, sought to assert his own claim for custody, submitting before the Court that he was ready to take care of his son and ensure his upbringing. However, it came to light that the father had previously attempted to deceive the staff at the children’s home by introducing a woman companion as the boy’s mother, a fact he later admitted before the Court. The State’s counsel, appearing as Additional Government Advocate (AGA), presented the report of the Child Welfare Committee, Amethi, which had earlier placed the child in institutional care. The AGA explained that due to ongoing disputes between the parents, including an FIR lodged by the mother against the father that had led to his temporary imprisonment, the CWC had intervened in the child’s welfare. On June 12, 2025, the CWC issued an order placing the boy in a children’s home to ensure his protection, education, and holistic development, given the strained circumstances at home and the child’s reluctance to live with either parent.

The State argued that the child’s custody was not illegal, as it was based on a valid judicial order passed by the CWC under the Juvenile Justice Act. The AGA contended that once such an order is passed under the provisions of the Act, it cannot be challenged through a habeas corpus petition. Instead, the proper course of action would be to seek remedy through appeal or revision as provided under Sections 101 and 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The State further argued that the Juvenile Justice Act constitutes a comprehensive statutory framework that entrusts the CWC with the power to make judicial determinations concerning the care, protection, and rehabilitation of children in need. Therefore, any challenge to its orders must follow the statutory route and not bypass the established legal mechanisms.

Judgement:

In contrast, the petitioner-mother’s counsel argued that her son’s continued stay in the children’s home amounted to unlawful detention, as she, being the natural guardian under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, was entitled to custody. The counsel contended that the CWC’s order placing the child in institutional care was arbitrary, as it was passed without proper consideration of the mother’s rights or her ability to care for the child. It was submitted that habeas corpus, being a constitutional remedy for unlawful detention, was maintainable even in child custody matters where the welfare of the child is at stake. The petitioner emphasized that she had reformed her life and was now in a position to provide a stable and secure home for her son, which should have been taken into account before depriving her of custody.

The Bench, however, found no merit in the petitioner’s submissions. Relying on the settled principle of law, it held that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable where the custody in question is pursuant to a judicial order of a competent authority. The Court referred extensively to the Full Bench judgment in Rachna and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2021), which had categorically held that habeas corpus cannot be invoked to challenge judicial custody ordered by a Magistrate or a Child Welfare Committee. The Division Bench emphasized that the powers exercised by the CWC under Section 27 of the Juvenile Justice Act are judicial in nature and equivalent to those of a Judicial Magistrate. Thus, any order passed by the CWC carries judicial sanctity and can only be questioned through the appellate or revisional remedies available under the statute.

The Court further noted that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, provides a detailed and well-defined mechanism for addressing issues relating to child custody, care, protection, and rehabilitation. It also recognizes that the CWC, composed of experts in child welfare, is best equipped to assess the needs and interests of children in difficult circumstances. The Bench observed that in cases involving estranged parents, the determination of custody must be guided primarily by the child’s welfare rather than parental rights. The Court also clarified that such disputes are more appropriately adjudicated under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, where the court can conduct a detailed inquiry into the welfare, preferences, and best interests of the child.

In its 17-page order, the Allahabad High Court reiterated that extraordinary constitutional remedies like habeas corpus are not meant to override or substitute statutory procedures. It observed that the petitioner had the option of filing an appeal or revision under the Juvenile Justice Act but had instead chosen to approach the Court directly under Article 226, which was impermissible in law. The judges highlighted that when the custody of a child is regulated by a lawful order issued by a competent authority, such custody cannot be described as illegal detention, which is the foundational condition for invoking habeas corpus jurisdiction. The Bench concluded that since the child’s placement at the children’s home was in pursuance of a judicial order by the CWC, the same could not be disturbed through habeas corpus proceedings.

At the same time, the Court demonstrated a humane approach toward the estranged father by granting him limited visitation rights. It directed that the father may visit his son once a month at Dayanand Bal Sadan, where the child is currently residing, for a duration of three hours. These meetings, the Court clarified, must be held under the supervision of the competent authorities and with prior permission. This arrangement, the Bench noted, would allow the father to maintain an emotional connection with his son while ensuring that the child’s environment remains secure and stable. Furthermore, the Court gave liberty to the father to file an appropriate application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking permanent custody or enhanced visitation rights.

In dismissing the habeas corpus petition, the Court underscored that the welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration in any custody determination. It observed that in the present case, the child’s own wish to stay at the children’s home, coupled with the judicially sanctioned custody arrangement, left no scope for interference. The judges remarked that the Court must respect the autonomy and well-being of the child, particularly when he has demonstrated maturity and clarity in expressing his preference. The judgment thus reinforced the principle that habeas corpus is not a substitute for statutory remedies, especially in matters involving judicial custody orders passed under specialized legislations like the Juvenile Justice Act.

The Allahabad High Court’s decision is significant in reaffirming the judicial boundaries of habeas corpus jurisdiction. It clarifies that while the writ remains a vital constitutional safeguard against unlawful detention, it cannot be used to circumvent judicial orders passed under valid statutory authority. By distinguishing between illegal detention and lawful custody under the JJ Act, the Court upheld the integrity of the juvenile justice mechanism and its role in child welfare governance. The judgment also reflects a balanced understanding of legal and humanitarian considerations—protecting the child’s welfare while preserving the father’s right to maintain a limited connection.