Adopted Child Has Equal Status As Biological Child; JJ Act Prevails Over Muslim Personal Law: Madras High Court
The High Court has held that under the Juvenile Justice Act, an adopted child enjoys the same legal status as a biological child and cannot be treated as a “second-class child,” adding that the statutory scheme of the JJ Act prevails over Muslim personal laws in matters of adoption.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has held that adoption under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, confers complete parental rights equivalent to those of natural parentage, stating that the Act will prevail over Muslim Personal Law in such matters.
The High Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a Muslim couple seeking a direction to register an adoption deed under the Registration Act, 1908, after the registering authority declined to do so, citing personal law restrictions.
A Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan, while deciding the matter, held that “a combined reading of Section 1(4) and Section 63 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 in the light of Article 15(3) of the Constitution leads me to conclude that it will prevail over Muslim Personal Law and an adopted child will have the same status of a biological child in all matters and an adopted child cannot be given a second class status.”
The petitioner was represented by Advocate M. Pandian, while G.V. Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader, appeared for the respondents.
Background
The petitioner, a Muslim resident of Madurai, and his wife were childless and sought to adopt their nephew, the son of the petitioner’s deceased brother, through a registered adoption deed. The Sub-Registrar’s Office refused registration because Islamic law does not recognise adoption in the same sense as Hindu law.
The petitioner argued that, under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, adoption is available to all citizens, irrespective of their religion. Therefore, the refusal to register was contrary to statutory provisions.
The State defended the refusal, citing earlier directions restraining Registrars from registering adoption deeds not executed in accordance with the personal law of the parties.
Court’s Observation
The Madras High Court examined Sections 1(4) and 63 of the JJ Act, 2015, alongside Article 15(3) of the Constitution, which permits the State to make special provisions for children. The Court held that the Act, being a secular welfare legislation, overrides conflicting personal laws in matters of adoption.
The Court referred to Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India (2014) in which the Supreme Court had held that the JJ Act provides an enabling mechanism allowing any person, irrespective of religion, to adopt by following statutory procedures. The High Court further clarified that the JJ Act, 2015, supersedes its earlier 2000 version, and its procedure governs all adoptions outside the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Quoting Shabnam Hashmi, the Bench observed that “an adopted child under the JJ Act stands on the same footing as a biological child for all purposes, including intestacy, and no child can be treated as lesser by reason of adoption.”
The Court also discussed the procedural safeguards under the Adoption Regulations, 2022, noting that the District Magistrate is now the competent authority to issue an adoption order under Section 61, ensuring protection of the child’s welfare.
Furthermore, while stating that a deed of adoption as distinguished from an authority to adopt does not require registration, the Bench held that “it is not the deed, but the adoption itself, that creates the status of an adopted son and confers an interest in the property of the adoptive father”.
Conclusion
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court declined to issue a direction for registration of the adoption deed, holding that adoption among Muslims must follow the procedure prescribed under the JJ Act and the 2022 Adoption Regulations.
However, the Court permitted the petitioners to initiate the statutory process through the District Child Protection Unit and the District Magistrate, emphasising that the adoption order once issued need not be separately registered.
Cause Title: K. Heerajohn v. The District Registrar, Madurai & Anr.
Appearances
Petitioner: M. Pandian, Advocate
Respondents: G.V. Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader
