Telangana High Court Demands Status Report on Child Rescued from Trafficking Racket
The Telangana High Court has taken a firm stance in a sensitive case involving a two-year-old girl who was rescued from her adoptive parents during an investigation into a major child trafficking network. On Friday, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin issued a directive to the state's women and child welfare department, mandating the submission of a comprehensive status report detailing the child's current wellbeing and circumstances.
Court Adjourns Hearing to March 10 After Detailed Arguments
The bench has scheduled the next hearing for March 10, 2024, to review the department's findings. This judicial intervention came while the court was hearing an appeal filed by a couple from Nalgonda district. The appellants are challenging a previous order issued by a single judge on January 28, which denied them custody of the child.
The single judge's ruling was grounded in the determination that the adoption process was not conducted through legal channels. It was revealed that the child was allegedly procured from an individual implicated in trafficking activities. In dismissing the couple's initial plea, the judge emphasized that emotional attachments formed through illegal means cannot legitimize what were termed 'backdoor' adoptions. The court further warned that sanctioning such arrangements could inadvertently encourage child trafficking and perpetuate systemic illegalities within adoption frameworks.
Couple's Legal Team Cites Child's Welfare and Supreme Court Precedent
During the recent hearing, the counsel representing the Nalgonda couple presented a multifaceted argument focused on the child's best interests. The legal team acknowledged that proper adoption procedures were not strictly followed and that a payment was made to a mediator. However, they urged the court to prioritize the child's welfare and future, highlighting the significant mental distress and depression the toddler is reportedly experiencing due to the absence of parental care.
The counsel referenced a recent Supreme Court ruling that invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure 'complete justice' in a particular case. They sought similar discretionary relief from the High Court bench, arguing for a compassionate resolution that considers the child's emotional and psychological needs above procedural technicalities.
Bench and Department Highlight Legal and Ethical Concerns
The division bench, in response, noted that the Supreme Court had explicitly clarified its order was confined to the specifics of that case and should not be treated as a binding precedent for others. This delineation underscores the judiciary's careful approach to balancing individual circumstances with broader legal principles.
Opposing the appeal, representatives from the women and child welfare department submitted crucial background information. They stated that the child was taken without the knowledge or consent of her biological parents from a key accused in a trafficking racket that was busted in Suryapet district. Officials disclosed that this criminal network was involved in the trafficking of multiple children, with a total of 16 minors having been rescued from the gang's operations.
The bench meticulously recorded all submissions from both parties before adjourning the matter. This case continues to highlight the complex interplay between legal adherence, child welfare, and the ongoing fight against child trafficking in the region.
