Introduction:
The Madras High Court, in a significant and reformative ruling, reaffirmed the supremacy of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 over religious personal laws concerning adoption. The judgment was delivered by Justice G.R. Swaminathan in the case of K Heerajohn v. The District Registrar and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 365, where a Muslim couple sought judicial intervention after authorities refused to register their adoption deed. The petitioner, a Muslim man, and his wife—having no biological children—had adopted the child of his deceased brother through an adoption deed dated September 13, 2025. However, the registering authority denied registration, citing the absence of adoption recognition under Muslim personal law. The couple challenged this refusal, arguing that the Juvenile Justice Act provided a secular framework for adoption that transcended religious boundaries. The court, while acknowledging the petitioner’s emotional and familial intentions, held that while Islam does not recognise adoption as understood under secular law, the Juvenile Justice Act gives individuals, irrespective of their religion, the statutory right to adopt. Consequently, the court concluded that the JJ Act prevails over personal law in such cases and that an adopted child must enjoy the same rights as a biological child.
Arguments of both sides:
The petitioner, represented by Advocate M. Pandian, contended that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was a secular, welfare-oriented statute enacted under the constitutional framework and, therefore, must supersede personal laws in matters of adoption. He argued that Section 1(4) of the JJ Act explicitly states that the Act applies notwithstanding any inconsistency with other laws, including personal laws. Emphasizing Article 15(3) of the Constitution, which permits the State to make special provisions for children, the counsel asserted that denying Muslims the right to adopt under the JJ Act amounted to discrimination. He also pointed to Section 63 of the JJ Act, which recognises adopted children as biological ones for all legal intents and purposes. The petitioner further cited the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India (2014), where the apex court had held that the JJ Act offered an optional and secular route to adoption even for those belonging to religions that do not traditionally recognise it. He urged the court to quash the registrar’s refusal and direct registration of the adoption deed, arguing that the act of adoption was lawful, compassionate, and consistent with constitutional morality.
The respondent authorities, represented by Additional Government Pleader Mr. G.V. Vairam Santhosh, opposed the petition, arguing that the registration authority was justified in rejecting the adoption deed since it was not executed as per the procedure prescribed under the JJ Act and Adoption Regulations, 2022. The counsel clarified that under Muslim personal law, adoption (known as “Kafala”) only establishes a guardianship relationship, not the status of a biological child, and that personal law continues to guide the community unless the statutory route under the JJ Act is strictly followed. He further emphasized that under Section 56(3) of the JJ Act, adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 was specifically excluded, and similarly, for Muslims, Christians, and others, the adoption must strictly adhere to the statutory process through the competent authority. The respondents maintained that the petitioner had attempted to bypass the regulatory framework by executing a private deed instead of applying through the District Magistrate and the Child Protection Unit. Hence, they asserted, the refusal to register was valid, and no writ could be issued to compel registration contrary to statutory procedure.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, while pronouncing the judgment, embarked on a detailed analysis of the interplay between personal law and secular welfare legislation. The court underscored that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, being a beneficial and secular statute, was designed to provide equal adoption rights irrespective of religion. It was held that a combined reading of Sections 1(4) and 63 of the JJ Act, read with Article 15(3) of the Constitution, made it clear that the Act prevails over personal laws in matters of adoption. The judge observed that no child should be deprived of the opportunity to grow up in a nurturing home merely because of the religion of prospective parents. Justice Swaminathan opined, “An adopted child cannot be treated as a second-class citizen; he or she must be given the same status and dignity as a biological child.”
The court referred extensively to the Supreme Court’s observations in Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India, reiterating that while personal laws may not recognise adoption, the JJ Act provided an optional statutory framework enabling adoption across religions. The High Court further clarified that while Muslims can adopt under the JJ Act, they must adhere to the procedure laid down in the Act and its accompanying Adoption Regulations, 2022. In this regard, the court found that the petitioner had merely executed a deed and sought registration without following the due process mandated under the statutory framework.
Justice Swaminathan also delved into the constitutional rationale behind child welfare legislation. He stated that Article 15(3) empowers the State to enact laws for the welfare of children, and such laws must be liberally interpreted to promote equality and inclusivity. The court then turned its focus to the administrative bottlenecks and procedural delays in adoption cases, highlighting how such inefficiencies hinder the very purpose of the law. Referring to reports indicating that for every child declared legally free for adoption, there are as many as 13 waiting parents, the judge lamented the sluggish processing of applications by authorities. He stressed that “delays in adoption processes deprive children of formative experiences that shape their emotional and social well-being,” urging authorities to treat adoption cases with utmost urgency.
The court further noted that under the Adoption Regulations, 2022, the adoption process requires coordination between the District Child Protection Unit and the District Magistrate, both of whom must ensure that the welfare of the child remains paramount. Justice Swaminathan directed that while granting permission for adoption, the District Magistrate must also ascertain that the consent of the child—when capable of understanding—is genuine and holistic. The consent must not be a mere formality but should reflect the best interests of the child, taking into account emotional and developmental welfare.
However, the court clarified that while the petitioner’s compassionate intention was acknowledged, the relief sought could not be granted since the deed was executed and presented outside the statutory mechanism. The court thus declined to order registration of the adoption deed but allowed the petitioners to pursue adoption through the proper legal channel under the JJ Act. It issued specific directions to the District Child Protection Unit and the District Magistrate to expedite the process. The court directed that upon submission of the application through the designated online portal, the Child Protection Unit must verify all details within three weeks, and thereafter, the District Magistrate must dispose of the application within an additional three weeks.
Importantly, Justice Swaminathan took the opportunity to make broader observations about the evolving nature of family law in India. He remarked that the constitutional guarantee of equality and dignity must extend to all children, irrespective of religion or mode of birth. Adoption, the court noted, is not merely a legal formality but a profound act of compassion that creates lifelong bonds. Hence, secular law must ensure uniform protection and recognition of such relationships. The judgment strongly reaffirmed that religion cannot act as a barrier in fulfilling a child’s right to family and affection. Justice Swaminathan’s words poignantly captured the spirit of the ruling: “When law and compassion conflict, it is the duty of the court to ensure that compassion triumphs within the framework of justice.”
In conclusion, while the petition was dismissed for non-compliance with procedural requirements, the High Court reaffirmed the legal principle that the Juvenile Justice Act prevails over Muslim personal law in adoption matters. The judgment serves as a clear judicial pronouncement promoting secularism, child welfare, and equality before law. It also issues an institutional reminder to expedite adoption processes, reduce bureaucratic delay, and ensure that every child grows in an environment of love and dignity.