No Illegality In Substituting Courts With District Magistrate To Expedite Adoption Process: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of 2021 Amendment To Juvenile Justice Act

The Court was hearing writ petitions challenging the 2021 amendment to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which conferred powers upon the District Magistrate to pass adoption orders in place of Courts, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 21 and the doctrine of separation of powers.

A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande observed: “As indicated by the statement of objects and reasons of the 2021 Amendment, the procedure for adoption was intended to be expedited and if the Parliament deemed it necessary to bring any change in the system of adoption with an intention of expediting the process by replacing the previous court base system, by conferring the powers upon the District Magistrate to act as a Competent Authority to issue final Adoption Orders and to supervise the Adoption Agencies, check compliances and ensure the child-base interest, we find no illegality in the said proposed action”.

Advocate Vishal Kanade appeared for the petitioners; Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General, appeared for the respondents.

Background

The petitions challenged the validity of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021 and corresponding Rules, which replaced the role of Courts with District Magistrates in the adoption process.

The petitioners contended that adoption is a judicial function requiring judicial expertise and cannot be entrusted to an executive authority. It was argued that the amendment violated Articles 14 and 21 and undermined the doctrine of separation of powers.

Reliance was placed on the historical evolution of adoption laws and judicial precedents, emphasising the role of Courts in safeguarding the welfare of children in adoption proceedings.

The Union of India, opposing the petitions, contended that the amendment was introduced to address delays in adoption proceedings and to streamline the process by empowering District Magistrates, who act as nodal authorities for child protection at the district level.

Court’s Observation

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework governing adoption under the Juvenile Justice Act and the role of the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), which regulates and monitors the adoption process.

It noted that the adoption process is not adversarial in nature and is governed by a structured statutory and regulatory mechanism ensuring scrutiny at multiple stages, including evaluation of adoptive parents and verification of child welfare.

The Court observed that the substitution of the Court with the District Magistrate does not alter the substantive safeguards governing adoption, as the process continues to be regulated by CARA and the Adoption Regulations. It held that “the whole process of adoption is well chartered by the Statutory Authority CARA,” which ensures that adoption decisions are made in the best interest of the child.

Addressing concerns regarding the competence of the District Magistrate, the Court noted that the District Magistrate performs several quasi-judicial functions under various statutes and is already part of the child protection framework.

The Court further observed that statutory mechanisms, including detailed Adoption Regulations, timelines, and post-adoption monitoring systems, ensure effective implementation of the adoption process.

It rejected the argument that the amendment violated the doctrine of separation of powers, holding that conferral of quasi-judicial functions on executive authorities is not impermissible and is a recognised feature of statutory schemes.

The Court emphasised that the legislative intent behind the amendment was to reduce delays in adoption proceedings, noting that the earlier court-based system had resulted in pendency and procedural delays. It noted that “adoption cases are non-adversarial in nature and to be dealt according to well laid out process,” justifying the legislative shift to an administrative authority.

The Court also considered the safeguards built into the system, including in-camera proceedings, time-bound disposal, and post-adoption follow-up mechanisms, which ensure that the welfare of the child remains paramount. It further held that the apprehension regarding the enforceability of adoption orders passed by the District Magistrate was misplaced, in view of the statutory framework governing the process.

The Court concluded that the amendment does not dilute judicial oversight but merely changes the forum for issuance of adoption orders while retaining all substantive safeguards.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021.

It held that the substitution of Courts with District Magistrates in the adoption process is a valid legislative measure aimed at expediting adoption proceedings and does not violate constitutional principles.

The interim stay on transfer of adoption matters to the District Magistrate was vacated, and the authorities were permitted to proceed in accordance with the amended statutory framework.

Cause Title: Nisha Pradeep Pandya v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:11417-DB)

Appearances

Petitioners: Advocates Vishal Kanade, Tanaya Patankar; Advocates Avinash Gokhale, Amrin Khan

Respondents: Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General; Advocates Savita Ganoo, Aditya Thakkar, Adarsh Vyas, Rama Gupta; P.H. Kantharia, Government Pleader; Advocates Jyoti Chavan, Danish Qureshi

Click here to read/download Judgment