Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI

1. Leave Granted.

2. These proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution arose from the interim orders of the Kerala High Court dated 13 January 2023 and 02 February 2023 in a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus.

Digitally signed by Ashwani Kumar Date: 2024.03.20 15:41:47 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified

3. The appellant and the ‘corpus’ (‘X’ for convenience of reference) are both female According to the appellant, they were in an intimate relationship. The petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus was instituted on the ground that the ‘X’ was being forcibly kept by her parents in their custody whereas she wished to remain with the appellant. On 13 January 2023, at the stage of admission, the Kerala High Court ordered the Secretary of the jurisdictional District Legal Services Authority1 to visit the fourth and fifth respondents who are the parents of ‘X’, and record her statement to ascertain if she was under illegal detention. The High Court further directed that in the event that ‘X’ is in illegal detention, the Station Head Officer of the jurisdictional Police Station must ensure that ‘X’ is produced before the Secretary, DLSA to facilitate an interaction with the High Court through a video conferencing session.

The parents of ‘X’ were allowed to join and remain present during the video conferencing session.

4. On 31 January 2023, the High Court directed the production of ‘X’ before the Secretary, DLSA on 2 February 2023 to facilitate an interaction with the High Court.

After an interaction with ‘X’, the High Court proceeded to direct ‘X’ to undergo a counselling session with a psychologist attached to a counselling centre.

5. Faced with the above grievance, this Court on 6 February 2023 issued notice and 1 DLSA issued interim directions. The parents of ‘X’ were directed to produce her before the Family Court at Kollam by 05:00 pm on 8 February 2023. Further, the Principal Judge of the Family Court was directed to arrange for an interview of ‘X’ with Ms Saleena V G Nair, a Member of the e-Committee of the Supreme Court who was, at that point in time, on deputation. Ms Nair is in the judicial service of the State of Kerala.

6. The interview was directed to be arranged in consultation with the Principal Judge of the Family Court and Ms Nair was directed to interact with ‘X’ and submit a report after ascertaining her wishes on whether she is voluntarily residing with her parents or is kept under illegal detention.

7. The Principal Judge of the Family Court has submitted a report on the modalities which were followed.

8. Ms Saleena V G Nair has also submitted a comprehensive report dealing with her interaction with ‘X’. The report by Ms Nair indicates that sufficient time was granted to ‘X’ to express her intent and desire and she was given a break in the course of the recording of her statement so as to reflect on what she had stated.

9. ‘X’ is a major and has completed her Masters degree in Arts. She has stated that she intends to become a lecturer and is focused on her career. She has stated that she is in possession of a mobile phone and is free to move wherever she desires.

Moreover, she has stated that she is living with her parents out of her own volition.

While she has stated that the appellant is an “intimate friend”, she has stated that she does not wish to marry any person or live with any person for the time being.

10. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the report which has been prepared by a senior Judicial Officer after duly ascertaining the wishes of ‘X’.

11. Consequently, we are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition on the ultimate outcome before the High Court.

12. However, we would wish to address a note of caution. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in such matters, the High Court has been passing orders directing the counselling of persons similarly situated as ‘X’ and there is an apprehensio