The welfare of children is of paramount importance, and any removal from educational institutions must adhere to legal standards ensuring the best interests and rights of the children involved.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

1. The present appeal has been listed with regard to the office objections to the effect that some of the documents annexed with the present appeal are not legible.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant shall furnish the legible copies in the event the counsel wants to rely on the same. Thus, the objections are overruled with the aforesaid observations.

3. The present writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioners in W.P.No.25836/2025 (subject writ petition) calling in question the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21816/2025 (GM-RES) c/w W.P.No.20555/2024, W.P.No.21850/2025 and W.P.No.25836/2025.

4. The dispute essentially pertains to 24 children (girls) hailing from the State of Meghalaya, who were purportedly admitted to AIM for Seva Sowmya Kesanupalli Girls Hostel, Private Educational Hostel at Penumale Village, Bagepalli Taluk (Institution) in June 2025. On the ground that the said institution was not registered, the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Chikkaballapur District, removed the said children and shifted them to a Government Hostel. It is alleged that the said removal of the children was contrary to the will of their parents and without any opportunity of hearing.

5. The said action of the CWC was called in question in the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. The parents of the children had preferred the subject writ petition (being W.P.No.25836/2025). The institution had also preferred a writ petition (W.P. No.21816/2025). However, the present appeal is filed by one parent, albeit on behalf of other parents as well.

6. The learned Single Judge noticed the affidavit of the Director of Social Welfare, Government of Meghalaya, which was filed in the writ proceedings placing on record a comprehensive report setting out the plan and measures proposed for repatriation of the 24 children to Meghalaya and their rehabilitation at Meghalaya. The said affidavit has specifically set out the entire journey from Chikkaballapura to Meghalaya including their travel from Bengaluru to Guwahati (by air) and thereafter, to Shillong (by bus). Two officials of the State of Meghalaya were also deputed to accompany the children during the said journey and interim arrangements were made to adequately take care of all the requirements of the children. The affidavit (which has been noticed by the learned Single Judge) also sets out that after the arrival of the children at Shillong they would be placed at the Government Children's Home, Mawkasiang, Shillong and that the educational, medical and other support required by the children for their development was set out which was proposed to be provided after the interaction with their families. The affidavit of the Registrar General of the High Court of Meghalaya was also placed on record. Further, the recommendation of the Amicus Curiae was also noticed by the learned Single Judge.

7. It is pertinent to note that the appellants (24 in number, who were the writ petitioners) are represented only by appellant No.1 and it is stated that appellant No.1 is authorized to represent the other appellants also. However, no authorization is produced.

8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the parents have sent their children to Bengaluru since better educational opportunities were available at the institution where they were admitted and that the wishes of the parents will have to be respected and taken into account. It is submitted that they would prefer the children to continue their education at the institution.

9. It is pertinent to note that the State had placed certain documents along with