ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus to set aside the order dated 09.12.2024 and publication dated 10.12.2024 by respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and passed without considering the common order passed in W.A.No.1257 of 2024, dated 28.11.2024 and consequently, to direct the respondents to hand over the child Bhargav Ram to the petitioners and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that petitioners herein are the husband and wife and it is submitted that they did not have any children out of their wedlock and therefore having come to know through a person that a college student got pregnant without marriage and has given birth to baby boy on 26.07.2022, they have approached the natural mother and have taken the custody of child from her. It is submitted that the mother of the child did not have sufficient financial resources and also due to unmarried pregnancy, she did not want to her identity to be known and therefore, the petitioners have taken the child in adoption from her when the child was four days old and they have performed the Datta Homam as per Hindu Ritual and have taken care of the child and have named the child as Bargav Ram. It is submitted that the relevant functions have been performed grandly in the presence of the elders and well- wishers. It is submitted that the respondent No.8, Police have taken away the child from the custody of the petitioners after registering FIR in Crime No.579/2024, on the file of Medipally Police Station and the petitioners were shocked and suffered with mental agony due to the said incident. Challenging the taking away the custody of the child from them, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.23727 of 2024 and this Court allowed the same and aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.3 filed a W.A.No.1257 of 2024 and the same was decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 28.12.2024 directing the competent authority to decide the applications of the petitioners seeking adoption within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is submitted that the petitioners have also registered themselves in Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) vide User Name is PrTE241553501108, but without considering the said application, the respondents have declared the child to be ‘legally free for adoption’ vide notification dated 10.12.2024 and therefore, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced various arguments and while Learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare has relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the child has been purchased by the petitioners and since money is involved, it is the case of a child trafficking. It is further submitted that identity of the mother is not known and the guidelines under the CARA have not been followed for taking the child in adoption and therefore, the petitioners’ claim for the child cannot be entertained. Though detailed arguments were advanced by both the parties and the matter was reserved for orders on 29.10.2025, some of the petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing Special Leave Petitions in the case Dasari Anil Kumar and Another Vs. The Child Welfare Project Director and Others , in Civil Appeal No.10544 of 2025, dated 12.08.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the interest of the children owing to the bonding between the adoptive parents and the respective children and has directed the respondent authorities to handover the custody of the children to the respective adoptive parents. The same was also brought to the notice of this Court. However, the learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare submitted that a criminal case is pending against the petitioners herein and that the CARA guidelines have not been followed and therefore, this case should be considered independently of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. This Court finds that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that the order was passed by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to do complete justice in the matter and that this order would not come in the way of any other proceeding that has been initiated by the respondent authorities. 4. This Court finds that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that the order was passed by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to do complete justice in the matter and that this order would not come in the way of any other proceeding that has been initiated by the respondent authorities. Following the said judgment, another petitioner by name G.Jayachandra Reddy had also approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.SLP (C) Diary No.59062/2025 and vide orders dated 10.11.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the said appeals and directed that the infants in question shall be handed over to the appellants within a period of One (1) week from the date of the order i.e., from 10.11.2025. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have filed the said judgment before this Court and have sought disposal of the writ petition in the light of the said judgment. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record this Court observes that though there is an allegation of exchange of money for getting the custody of the children and subsequent adoption of the children, there are no allegations of ill-treatment or abuse of the children by the adoptive parents. It is also not in dispute that the adoptive parents have not followed CARA guidelines and as per the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1257 of 2024, they have submitted the applications before CARA and the same are pending consideration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the some of the cases in the batch and has directed release of the children to the adoptive parents by observing as under in the case of the Dasari Anil Kumar and Another Vs. The Child Welfare Project Director and Others , in Civil Appeal No.10544 of 2025, dated 12.08.2025: “3. The appellants assailed the validity of the action of the police authorities in taking away the custody of the minor children from them as they claim to be the “adoptive parents” on the premise that it is without authority of law. The Child Welfare Project Director and Others , in Civil Appeal No.10544 of 2025, dated 12.08.2025: “3. The appellants assailed the validity of the action of the police authorities in taking away the custody of the minor children from them as they claim to be the “adoptive parents” on the premise that it is without authority of law. The details of the cases as narrated by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1265 of 2024, 1277 of 2024, 1267 of 2024, 1266 of 2024 are extracted as under: “In W.A. No.1265 of 2024, it is the case of the respondents No.1 and 2 that they are the adoptive parents of one minor girl child, namely D. Maanvika, who is aged about three years. It is their case that respondents No.1 and 2 were informed through a common friend that a nine days old baby girl is available for adoption. The aforesaid respondents therefore adopted the child on 30.03.2024, in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, "the 1956 Act"). In W.A.No.1277 of 2024, the respondent No.1 claims that she has adopted a two days old baby girl, namely K. Un1a Maheshwari, from her biological parents on 15.11.2021, as they were not in a position to bring up the child. In W.A.No.1267 of 2024, the respondents No. l and 2 assert they learnt through a common friend that a twenty days old baby girl, namely S.Rishika, is put up for adoption. Therefore, the said respondents adopted the said child on 26.01.2024 from her biological parents. In W.A.No.1266 of 2024, the respondents No.l and 2 claim to be adoptive parents of a minor child, namely B.Sresta. It is their case that they adopted the aforesaid two days old baby girl on 22.01.2024 from the biological parents.” 4. Therefore, the said respondents adopted the said child on 26.01.2024 from her biological parents. In W.A.No.1266 of 2024, the respondents No.l and 2 claim to be adoptive parents of a minor child, namely B.Sresta. It is their case that they adopted the aforesaid two days old baby girl on 22.01.2024 from the biological parents.” 4. In fact, there were petitioners, who are said to be “adoptive parents” in nine Writ Petitions before the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who sought a declaration that action of the Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda and Station House Officer, Medpally Police Station in forcibly and illegally taking the custody of the minor children from the appellants and handing them over to the Child Welfare Project Director and integrated Child Protection Services, Sishuvihar, Hyderabad on the basis of the First Information Report No.579 of 2024 dated 22.05.2024 was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 20 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned single Judge by his common order dated 23.09.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.22020, 19623, 21108, 21980, 21981, 17040, 22026, 22429 and 23727 of 2024 allowed the Writ Petitions and held that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for brevity, “the Act”), did not apply to the fact situation of the cases and further the action of the police authorities in taking the custody of the children in question from the appellants herein who claim to be adoptive parents of the children in question was illegal and without authority of law. The learned single Judge of the High Court granted liberty to the appellants herein to adopt the procedure prescribed for continuation of the custody of the children with them by validly executing adoption deeds or by following any other procedure which would allow them to retain the custody of the children forever. 6. Being aggrieved by the said common order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the learned single Judge, the Child Welfare Project Director, Women, Children, Disabled And Senior Citizen and Welfare Department, Medchal, Malkajgiri District and Directorate of Women Development and Child Welfare Department, represented by its Director, Yusufguda Main Road, Madhuranagar, Yusufguda, Hyderabad, had preferred the appeals. There were also intervening application in the Writ Appeals. There were also intervening application in the Writ Appeals. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana disposed of the appeals by setting aside the order of the learned single Judge and observed in paragraphs 25 and 26 as under: “25. The children in question are in the custody with the Committee since 22.05.2024. Therefore, presently in the obtaining factual matrix of the case, we are not inclined to disturb the custody of the children on account of non- compliance of Sections 36, 37 and 38 of 2015 Act. It is stated before us that social investigation has been completed. 26. However, it is necessary to issue the following directions: (1) The Committee shall pass an order in terms of Section 37 of the 2015 Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed today. (2) Some of the adoptive parents have filed an seeking adoption of the children. The competent authority is directed to decide the application seeking adoption within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order passed today. (3) Needless to state that the custody of the children shall be subject to outcome of the aforesaid directions.” 7. Hence, these appeals. 8. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents and learned ASG at length. We have perused the material on record. 9. The details of the “Adoptive parents” and the children are provided by learned senior counsel for the appellants in a tabular form, which is reproduced as under: SL. NO SLP NO. NAME AND  OCCUPATION OF PARTIES DISTRICT & STATE OF RESIDENCE OF PARTIES NAME OF  THE BABY DATE OF  ADOPTION DATE OF CONFISCA-TION 1. SLP (C) No. 6322 of 202 P1- Dasari Anil kumar (Occupation - Assistant Engineer- Scientific Assistant, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre) P2- Bezawada Sathya (Occupation- Customer Associate, State Bank of India) Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh State D. Maanvika 30.03.2024 22.05.2024 2. SLP (C) No. 4342 of 2025 Sole Petitioner - Kandala Padma (Occupation - Village Organization Assistant) Husband - Late Kandala Venkat Reddy (Passed away on 05.05.2023, after the adoption) Nalgonda District, Telangana State K. Uma Maheshwari 15.11.2021 22.05.2024 3. SLP (C) No. 4342 of 2025 Sole Petitioner - Kandala Padma (Occupation - Village Organization Assistant) Husband - Late Kandala Venkat Reddy (Passed away on 05.05.2023, after the adoption) Nalgonda District, Telangana State K. Uma Maheshwari 15.11.2021 22.05.2024 3. SLP (C) No. 6426 of 2025 P1 - Shulla Mallesh (Occupation - Senior Graphic Designer, BRK News) P2- Sowla Sruthi (Occupation - Pharmacist in Apollo Pharmacy) Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Telangana State S. Rishika 26.01.2024 22.05.2024 4. SLP(C) No.660 5 of 2025 P1 - B Santosh (Occupation - Assistant Project Manager, GMMCO Limited) P2- Dasari Jagadeeswari Devi (Occupation- Quality Designer - I, Electronic Arts Games India Pvt. Ltd.) Hyderabad, Telangana State B.Sresta 22.01.2024 22.05.2024 10. Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents, we find that ends of justice would be served in the instant case by directing return of the above-mentioned children to the “adoptive parents”. We also say so by invoking our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution in the peculiar facts of the case. 11. This is in the interest of the children owing to the bonding between the “adoptive parents” and the respective children. This is by following the principle of the best interest of the child; principle of family responsibility; principle of safety, positive measures, principle of Institutionalization as a measure of last resort, principle of repatriation and restoration, which are also enunciated as general principles in Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 12. For ease of reference, the aforesaid principles are extracted as under: “3. General principles to be followed in administration of Act.- The Central Government, the State Governments, the Board, the Committee, or other agencies, as the case may be, while implementing the provisions of this Act shall be guided by the following fundamental principles, namely: (iv) Principle of best interest: All decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop full potential. (v) Principle of family responsibility: The primary responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the child shall be that of the biological family or adoptive or foster parents, as the case may be. (v) Principle of family responsibility: The primary responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the child shall be that of the biological family or adoptive or foster parents, as the case may be. (vi) Principle of safety: All measures shall be taken to ensure that the child is safe and is not subjected to any harm, abuse or maltreatment while in contact with the care and protection system, and thereafter. (vii) Positive measures: All resources are to be mobilised including those of family and community, for promoting the well-being, facilitating development of identity and providing an inclusive and enabling environment, to reduce vulnerabilities of children and the need for intervention under this Act. xxx (xii) Principle of institutionalisation as a measure of last resort: A child shall be placed in institutional care as a step of last resort after making a reasonable inquiry. (xiii) Principle of repatriation and restoration: Every child in the juvenile justice system shall have the right to be re-united with his family at the earliest and to be restored to the same socio-economic and cultural status that he was in, before coming under the purview of this Act, unless such restoration and repatriation is not in his best interest.” 13. In the circumstances, we direct the respondent-authorities to handover the custody of the children to the respective “adoptive parents” on or before 14.08.2025 by 05:00 PM. 14. However, as a safeguard and in the best interest of the children, we direct that the Member Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority and/or the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Committee, within whose jurisdiction the “adoptive parents" reside to seek reports on the welfare and progress of the child from the respective “adoptive parents” on a quarterly basis starting from November, 2025 onwards. The Member Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority and/or the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Committee will also be at liberty to depute a Child Welfare Expert to inspect the home where the child and the “adoptive parents” reside. This is to ensure the welfare and progress of the children who have been returned to the “adoptive parents”. 15. We again clarify that we have passed the aforesaid order in the best interest of the children concerned in the instant case as they have been with their adoptive parents for a few months upto three years in these cases. 16. 15. We again clarify that we have passed the aforesaid order in the best interest of the children concerned in the instant case as they have been with their adoptive parents for a few months upto three years in these cases. 16. A copy of the said report may also be submitted to the jurisdictional Child Welfare Committee. 17. It is needless to observe that the aforesaid order has been passed not only in the best interest of the children concerned, but also by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to do complete justice in the matter. 18. It is also needless to observe that this order would not come in the way of any other proceeding that has been initiated by the respondent(s)-authorities.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to the case. Article 142 of the Constitution of India reads as under : “142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.— (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order3 prescribe. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.” 7. Considering that the power of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 142 is exclusive and extraordinary, whether an order passed under Article 142 can be considered as a precedent for similar cases, particularly when the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that this order would not come in the way of any other proceedings that has been initiated by the respondent authorities, the question that would arise for consideration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Another , reported in 1998 (4) SCC 409 , has observed thus: “The plenary powers of this court under Article 142 of the Constitution are inherent in the court and are complementary to those powers which are specifically conferred on the court by various statutes though are not limited by those statutes. These powers also exist independent of the statutes with a view to do complete justice between the parties. These powers also exists independent of the statutes with a view to do complete justice between the parties. These powers are of very wide amplitude and are in the nature of supplementary powers. This power, exists as a separate and independent basis of jurisdiction, apart from the statutes. It stands upon the foundation, and the basis for its exercise may be put on a different and perhaps even wider footing, to prevent injustice in the process of litigation and to do complete justice between the parties. This plenary jurisdiction is, thus, the residual source of power which this Court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just and equitable to do so and in particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to do complete justice between the parties. This plenary jurisdiction is, thus, the residual source of power which this court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just and equitable to do so and in particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to do complete justice between the parties, while administering justice according to law. There is no doubt that it is an indispensable adjunct to all other powers and is free from the restraint of jurisdiction and operates as a valuable weapon in the hands of the court to prevent "clogging or obstruction of the stream of justice". It, however, needs to be remembered that the powers conferred on the court by Article 142 being curative in nature cannot be construed as powers which authorise the court to ignore the substantive rights of a litigant while dealing with a cause pending before it. this power cannot be used to "supplant" substantive law applicable to the case or cause under consideration of the court. this power cannot be used to "supplant" substantive law applicable to the case or cause under consideration of the court. Article 142, even with the width of its amplitude, cannot be used to build a new edifice where none existed earlier, by ignoring express statutory provisions dealing with a subject and thereby to achieve something indirectly which cannot be achieved directly.” …… “No enactment made by Central or State Legislature can limit or restrict the power of this Court under Article 142 of the constitution, the court must take into consideration the statutory provisions regulating the matter in dispute. What would be the need of "complete justice" in a cause or matter would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and while exercising that power the court would take into consideration the express provisions of a substantive statute. Once this Court has taken seisin of a case, cause or matter, it has power to pass any order or issue direction as may be necessary to do complete justice in the matter. This has been the consistent view of this Court as would appear from the decisions of this court in State of U.P. Vs. Poosu & Anr. ( 1976 (3) SCR 1005 ; Ganga Bishan & Ors. Vs. Jai Narain ( 1986 (1) SCC 75 ; Navnit R. Kamani & Ors. Vs. Jai Narain ( 1988 (4) SCC 387 ); B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. vs. State of Mysore & Ors. (1986 (3) SCR 682): Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, (supra), and Harbans Singh vs. State of U.P. Ors.” 8. This Court finds that the Hon’ble Supreme Court initially in the case of Dasari Anil Kumar (cited supra), has invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India and later in the case of Gudla Jayachandra Reddy and Another Vs. The Child Welfare Project Director and Others , in SLP (C) No. 57581 of 2025 has followed the above decision and passed orders invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, by implication, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dasari Anil Kumar (cited supra), is applicable to the similar cases of batch only. 9. The Child Welfare Project Director and Others , in SLP (C) No. 57581 of 2025 has followed the above decision and passed orders invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, by implication, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dasari Anil Kumar (cited supra), is applicable to the similar cases of batch only. 9. Therefore, this Court, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, directs the respondent authorities to release the infants in these cases also to the concerned adoptive parents herein within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to the same conditions as imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, except for these cases which were considered and disposed as a batch of cases by the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision has also referred to the batch of these writ petitions and has directed the release of children in the respective appeals, these decisions shall not be considered as precedents for any other case. 10. With these directions, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.