Introduction:
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court recently ruled on the validity of adoption deeds and their registration, emphasising that the registration of an adoption deed holds no legal sanctity and does not confer rights upon the adopting parties. In the case, C Pakkir Maideen and Others v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others (W.P.(MD) No. 18174 of 2018), the petitioners, who were a Muslim family, sought directions from the Sub-Registrar of Kayathur (Tuticorin District) to register an adoption deed executed between them. The petitioners, a husband and wife, intended to adopt their third daughter to another couple, but the Sub-Registrar refused, stating that there was no provision for the online registration of adoption deeds under Muslim law. The Court, after hearing both sides, clarified that the registration of an adoption deed does not have any legal bearing under existing laws, particularly Muslim Personal Law and the Juvenile Justice Act.
Arguments by the Petitioners:
The petitioners contended that while adoption is not recognized under Muslim Personal Law, it is not prohibited either. They relied on Section 41 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which permits adoption for Muslims, arguing that there is no legal barrier to adoption by Muslims as long as the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 are adhered to. They further argued that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and its associated rules did not abolish the customary practice of adoption under Mohammedan Law, thereby entitling them to seek the registration of the adoption deed. The petitioners emphasized that the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register the deed was unwarranted, as the laws governing adoption, such as the JJ Act, did not impose restrictions on Muslims adopting children by custom.
Arguments by the Respondents:
On the other hand, the respondent, the Principal Secretary to the Government, through counsel Mr H. Arumugam, asserted that adoption under Muslim law does not require the same formalities as outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act. They argued that adoption under Islamic custom does not necessitate the formal registration of adoption deeds and that the legal procedures for adoption are set out under the Juvenile Justice Act and related regulations, which the petitioners had bypassed in their request for registration. Additionally, the respondent noted that the laws under the JJ Act and Adoption Regulations, 2017, were designed to ensure the protection of children and prevent abuse, and thus the adoption process should follow the prescribed procedures, including registering with the Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System (CARINGS) and obtaining the requisite legal orders.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, in his ruling, observed that the registration of an adoption deed does not have legal sanctity and does not bestow any rights on the adopting parties. He noted that no provision under Indian law mandates or recognizes the registration of adoption deeds as a standalone legal process. The judge emphasized that adoption under Muslim law and the Juvenile Justice Act should follow the prescribed procedures outlined in the relevant statutes, specifically focusing on the regulations laid out in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Adoption Regulations 2017. According to the court, the law mandates a formal legal procedure for adoption to safeguard the welfare of the child and to prevent illegal activities such as child trafficking.
Justice Ilanthiraiyan further pointed out that while adoption by Muslims is allowed under Section 41 of the Juvenile Justice Act, it cannot bypass the formalities laid down in the Act and the corresponding regulations. The court referred to Regulation 51, which requires prospective adoptive parents to register on the CARINGS portal and obtain the necessary consents and affidavits. Furthermore, Regulation 55 stipulates that adoptive parents must approach a competent civil court to secure an adoption order.
The judge also made it clear that the procedure prescribed by the Juvenile Justice Act and the Adoption Regulations is mandatory, and any attempt to circumvent this by registering an adoption deed directly was improper. Therefore, the court rejected the petitioners’ request for registration of the adoption deed, noting that the law’s safeguards for children’s protection must be followed. Justice Ilanthiraiyan directed the Inspector General of Registration to issue a circular instructing all registrars to refrain from registering adoption deeds unless they are by the legal processes laid out in the relevant statutes.