The Tripura High Court on Wednesday directed the State authorities to forthwith restore a child to her parents after observing prima facie that she had been taken from her parental home and lodged in a child care home without following the procedure prescribed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M S Ramachandra Rao and Justice S Datta Purkayastha passed the interim order while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by father of the minor girl Gopal Das.

The court was hearing a petition concerning the custody of the child.

According to the Advocate General, a complaint had been received from women residing in the area where the child was staying with her parents. On the basis of the complaint, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated action and took the child from her parental home, following which the matter was placed before the Child Welfare Committee, Dhalai.

The child was subsequently lodged in a home from early June 2026, the Advocate General submitted before the court.

The Bench questioned the State counsel about the procedure followed in taking the child into custody, particularly the process prescribed under Chapter III of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

The court also sought to know whether an inquiry under Section 33(1) of the Act had been conducted by the Child Welfare Committee, Dhalai, in the prescribed manner and whether the committee had passed an order as required under the provision.

The Advocate General could not produce any such order before the court, the order stated.

The Bench consequently observed that, prima facie, taking the child from her parental home on the basis of allegations contained in a complaint by women residing in the area, without following the due process prescribed under the law, was arbitrary and illegal.

The court further observed that such action was prima facie violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The respondents were accordingly directed to forthwith restore the child to the custody of her parents.

The court also directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit by the next date of hearing.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 11, 2026.

Speaking on the issue, senior advocate Purushottam Roy Barman who pleaded with the court on behalf of the petitioner said, “The allegations leveled against the minor girl are anonymous and not substantive in nature. She had been picked up and kept in custody without any legal justification. The petitioner has demanded compensation and strict action against the authorities who had passed instructions in violation of the law. Further hearing is scheduled to take place on the next date.”