Roshani Devi Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

Roshani Devi Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of: Mr.Tejpal, being a major, may choose to stay wherever he wishes; respondent no.2 (SHO of the concerned area) directed to inquire into the allegation against respondent no.3 of operating a de-addiction centre without requisite permissions/approvals and, if found true, to take action in accordance with law; no opinion expressed on that plea.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of habeas corpus was required for production of Mr.Tejpal, the petitioner's son, and what directions should follow given his stated wish to stay with his mother. +1 more

Court's answer

No further directions are required to be passed; Mr.Tejpal, being a major, can choose to stay wherever he wishes.

Ratio / Principle

The respondent no.2, i.e., the SHO of the concerned area, shall inquire into the allegation that respondent no.3 is operating without the requisite permissions and approvals and, if that be so, take action against them in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

The Court has made it clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the petitioner's plea regarding respondent no.3's operations without permissions.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by a mother (Roshani Devi) seeking production of her son, Mr.Tejpal. Tejpal, a major, had appeared before the Court on 21.11.2025 expressing his desire to stay with his mother, whereupon the Court referred the parties to mediation while observing his liberty to take an independent decision; he had since been staying with the petitioner and reiterated his wish in court. Counsel for his wife and child raised no objection. Holding that no further directions were required since Tejpal, being a major, can choose to stay wherever he wishes, the Court disposed of the petition. On the petitioner's allegation that respondent no.3 was running a de-addiction centre without requisite permissions and clearances, the Court expressly declined to express any opinion (none appearing for respondent no.3) and instead directed respondent no.2, the SHO of the concerned area, to inquire into the allegation and, if found true, take action in accordance with law. Bench: Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja, JJ. Decided 12.02.2026.

$~1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 12.02.2026

+ W.P.(CRL) 3838/2025

ROSHANI DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Abhishek Kaushik and Mr.Shubham, Advs. along with Petitioner in person. Mr.Tejpal in person (son of petitioner)

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Lao, SC (Crl.) with Ms.Priyam Agarwal, Mr.Abhinav Kr. Arya and Mr.Aryan Sachdeva, Advs. and Insp. Ravi Prakash Meena, PS J.P. Kalan, Dwarka Distt.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for production of the son of the petitioner, that is, Mr.Tejpal.

Mr.Tejpal appeared before this Court on 21.11.2025 and had expressed his desire to stay with his mother, that is, the petitioner

Signature Not Verified

Page 1 of 3

Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3838/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 3.02.2026 19:42:21

herein. Keeping in view his desire, this Court, while referring the parties to mediation, observed that he is at liberty to take his own independent decision including staying with his mother.

We are informed that since that day he has been staying with the petitioner.

Today, he is present in person before this Court. He again states that he would like to continue to stay with his mother.

The learned counsel for the wife and the child of Mr.Tejpal submits that as far as they are concerned, they would be happy if Mr.Tejpal stays with them, however, they have no objection if Mr.Tejpal continues to stay with the petitioner.

In view of the above, no further directions are required to be passed except stating that Mr.Tejpal can choose to stay wherever he wishes, as he is a major.

At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that the respondent no.3 does not have the requisite permissions and clearances for acting as a de-addiction centre. He submits that the operations of the respondent no.3 without such permission would be illegal.

As none is present for the respondent no.3, we do not go further in this allegation except stating that the respondent no.2, that is, SHO of the concerned area, shall inquire into this allegation and determine if the respondent no.3 is operating without the requisite permissions and approvals and, if that be so, take action against them in accordance with law.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the

Signature Not Verified

Page 2 of 3

Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3838/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 3.02.2026 19:42:21

above plea of the petitioner.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

FEBRUARY 12, 2026/ ns/as

Signature Not Verified

Page 3 of 3

Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3838/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 3.02.2026 19:42:21