Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Properties of orphans must not be allowed to be preyed upon by unscrupulous relatives like vultures: Delhi High Court, framing landmark guidelines for safeguarding orphans’ property rights.

07 April 2025 3:04 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


“Courts Must Be Zealous Guardians of Minor Orphans’ Property” - In a landmark decision Delhi High Court has laid down an exhaustive legal framework to protect the movable and immovable properties of orphaned minors. Justice Subramonium Prasad issued a scathing critique of systemic lapses and directed urgent coordination between executive authorities, courts, and welfare bodies under the parens patriae doctrine to act in the best interest of these children.

The petitions were filed by minor children who had tragically lost their parents under traumatic circumstances—one set of minors saw their mother murdered by their intoxicated father, who then died by suicide; another set suffered years of abuse by their father, who later died while their mother abandoned them. Both sets of minors were placed in child care institutions under the supervision of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Delhi. These children approached the High Court fearing that their deceased parents’ properties were being misappropriated by relatives.

Justice Subramonium Prasad took cognizance of the fact that “these incidents of violence have left the Petitioners extremely disturbed and they have been affected both mentally and physically”. Despite repeated directions from CWC to secure the children’s property rights, bureaucratic inertia and legal delays continued to jeopardize their future.

The legal questions revolved around: Whether District Magistrates and the State had a legal obligation under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, to secure the assets of orphaned minors.
What procedural safeguards are necessary to prevent exploitation of these children's properties.
The Court emphasized that the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and Family Courts Act, 1984 collectively create a responsibility upon the State, courts, and welfare bodies to safeguard the rights of minors, especially in absence of natural guardians.
Referring to Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, the Court declared: “Such long adjournments defeat the whole purpose of Section 10... which is for taking immediate action to safeguard the properties of such persons lest it is frittered away.”
Justice Prasad criticized the existing system as being “callous” and noted the “lack of coordination between various organs of the State, be it Courts or the Executive”, which resulted in orphans’ properties being “frittered away by relatives or strangers.”
The Court accepted comprehensive Guidelines framed by the Child Welfare Committee dated 09.04.2024. Some of the key observations and directions include: “Courts must be zealous guardians for the protection of the properties of minors and ensure that properties are not frittered by unscrupulous relatives who like vultures want to prey on the meagre belongings...”

Guidelines for Courts:
•    The Family Court must appoint guardians within four weeks from receiving the application.
•    Courts must avoid adjournments exceeding one week.
•    A separate counsel should be appointed for the child, and the case must remain pending until the child attains majority.
•    Courts must mandate annual accounting by the guardian and oversee the same.
•    Adoption proceedings must not be hindered by pending property matters.

Guidelines for District Magistrates:
•    Must file applications under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act within 7 days of receiving information.
•    Take interim protection orders under Section 12 to preserve assets.
•    Conduct quarterly meetings with CWC and child (if 14+) to review asset status.

Role of Other Stakeholders:
•    The judgment delineates specific responsibilities for:
•    Child Welfare Committees
•    Child Care Institutions
•    District Child Protection Units
•    Police Authorities
•    District Legal Services Authorities

Each stakeholder is tasked with preparing detailed asset reports, securing succession and legal heir certificates, and preventing misuse of children’s inheritance.
The Delhi High Court’s judgment is a watershed moment in the legal protection of orphaned children. By institutionalizing timelines, fixing accountability, and issuing sweeping procedural reforms, the Court has sent a strong message to the administration and judiciary alike.
In Justice Subramonium Prasad’s words: “The case of children who are helpless victims of circumstances must be dealt with compassion... the Courts must ensure that the directions are scrupulously followed.”
This decision will serve as a model framework for other states and judicial forums handling vulnerable minors’ rights across the country.

Date of Decision: April 2, 2025
 

Latest Legal News