The Kerala High Court recently refused to entertain a habeas corpus petition moved by Anupama S Chandran, a former leader of the Students Front of India (SFI) and daughter of a local CPI(M) leader in Thiruvananthapuram, PS Jayachandran. The petition sought that her child be produced and handed over to her. The child was allegedly given up for adoption by her parents and Chandran accused them for illegally detaining her new-born baby. He plea also alleged that the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) had violated the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, regarding the surrender of an “abandoned child”.
A division bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice C Jayachandran, stated that the Court could not become proactive as the child was not in illegal custody after the CWC’s submission that the baby was with a couple—the adoptive parents—in Andhra Pradesh. The bench further said that the matter was already being heard by a family court, and therefore, there was no scope for a habeas corpus and directed that the petition be withdrawn, which was later dismissed as withdrawn by the Court.
Anupama had given birth to a baby in October last year and this was a huge embarrassment for her family as she was unmarried and the father of the child, Ajith Kumar, a worker of the CPI(M)-backed youth wing, was already married.
Anupama’s father said that the child was handed over to CWC with her consent as she was not capable to take care of the baby at that time. He said that before giving the child, Anupama had signed a consent letter, which had been attested by a notary. However, Anupama refused to accept that she had signed any consent letter, stating that it was obtained on a false pretext.
On April 19, 2021, Anupama had lodged a complaint with the Peroorkada police, but the police did not register a case at that time. After almost six months, the police was forced to register a case on October 18, 2021, though it claimed there was no delay in registering the case and initially the family had informed the police that the child was safe with them.
The incident has led to a political storm in Kerala and Anupama’s struggle for her “kidnapped” child born out of wedlock is being seen as a milestone in a women’s right to her sexuality. Instead of taking it lying down, Anupama has chosen to retaliate and fight for her child, making it clear that the baby being born out of wedlock does not diminish her rights as a mother.
Anupama also alleged that she was ousted from the CPI(M) at the behest of her father, who is a prominent local leader. She claimed that she tried all avenues within the party to ensure that her grievances were redressed, but to no avail, and as a result, she was forced to approach the media. Anupama and Ajith has been in the news since October and the state government and its police scrambled to action after the media highlighted their case.
Even though the CPI(M) claimed that the party was supporting Anupama, this does not seem to be true as seen in the statement of the party’s Thiruvananthapuram district committee secretary, Anavoor Nagappan in a Facebook post. Incidentally, Anupama had met him to highlight her plight. The post said: “Marry a woman after forcing her out of a relationship and same time fall in love with another and make her pregnant. Can the society accept this.”
Also Read: Uttarakhand High Court dismisses PIL seeking directions to state govt to start police recruitment
Meanwhile, the cultural affairs minister of Kerala, Saji Cherian, made distasteful comments about Ajith and Anupama, sympathising with his party colleague Jayachandran. Anupama has already registered a defamation case against Cherian. Cherian said:
“Marrying and making two-three kids, then romancing a friend’s wife….As if that was not enough, romancing again a girl of tender age…impregnating her… her father who questioned it might be going to jail. We are not against the girl getting her child. But the mindset of her mother and father should be understood.”
Anupama was separated from her child as a protection measure after she was infected with coronavirus, and subsequently, her father along with other relatives surrendered the child to Amma Thottil, an organisation run by CWC, concealing the infant’s identity and declaring him as an orphan.
Anupama further accused her parents of keeping her under house arrest and forcefully administering psychiatric drugs. She alleged that she escaped thereafter and started living with Ajith, and together, they started looking for their child. Anupama and Ajith were informed that two children were put in Amma Thottil on October 23. They demanded the DNA tests of the infants to ascertain if one of them was their child. The couple alleged that CWC only agreed to conduct the DNA test for one.
A family court had earlier granted major relief to Anupama by staying the adoption of the child. The State Adoption Resources Authority (SARA) had stated that the child was given for adoption to an Andhra couple, after considering it as an “abandoned child”. But this was contested by Anupama who claimed to be the biological mother of the child.
The family court had also insisted on conducting a DNA test to ascertain if Anupama was the mother, while noting if the baby was indeed given up for adoption, at all. “A DNA test may be taken to identify if the baby given up for adoption belongs to Anupama S Chandran…. There is a need to examine if the baby was abandoned or not,” the Court said.
Also Read: Allahabad High Court says sale certificate issued after auction can’t be cancelled
Section 38 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, lays down the procedure for declaring a child legally free for adoption in case of an “orphaned” or “abandoned” child. But the CWC at the outset must try to trace the parents and guardians of the child. If the child’s status is established as an “orphan” or “abandoned”, he/she becomes legally free for adoption. Declaration should be made within two months from the date of production of the child in case he/she is up to two years of age, otherwise within four months.
In case for “surrendered” children, parents or guardians are given two months’ time after surrendering the child to reconsider their decision. And after the period lapses, the child is legally declared free for adoption.
Under Section 56(1) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a couple or a single parent can adopt an orphan/abandoned/ surrendered child. Section 2(1) of the Act defines an abandoned child as: “a child deserted by his biological or adoptive parents or guardians, who has been declared as abandoned by the Committee after due inquiry”.
—By Shashank Rai and India Legal News Service