Introduction:

The Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Union of India and another v. Sukhpreet Kaur and another, addressed a crucial legal question concerning adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The case revolved around the denial of a compassionate appointment in the Indian Railways to an adopted daughter, Sukhpreet Kaur, due to the absence of her adoptive parents’ names in her Class 10th certificate. The Union of India challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had directed the government to consider Kaur’s case. The Union argued that since the registered adoption deed was executed in 2017 when she was already an adult, her adoption was not legally valid. However, the High Court rejected this argument, holding that adoption under Hindu law can be valid even without a registered deed if the necessary formalities of giving and taking have been performed. The Court emphasised that once an adoption deed is registered, it carries a presumption of validity under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The Union of India, represented by Central Government Counsel Meghna Malik, contended that the adoption deed executed in 2017 was invalid since Sukhpreet Kaur was already an adult at the time of registration. They argued that the law does not permit the adoption of an adult and that the lack of her adoptive parents’ names in her Class 10th certificate further proved that no legal adoption had taken place. The Union also maintained that a registered deed is the only valid method of formalising an adoption, and since Kaur’s deed was registered after she turned 20, she could not be considered a legally adopted child entitled to benefits such as compassionate appointment.

On the other hand, Kaur’s counsel argued that adoption under Hindu law does not necessarily require a registered deed. The primary requirement is the completion of the formal act of giving and taking in adoption, which, in Kaur’s case, had already occurred in 2010 when she was still a minor. The registration of the adoption deed in 2017 was only a formal acknowledgement of an adoption that had already taken place years earlier. The counsel further contended that the absence of the adoptive parents’ names in the Class 10th certificate was not conclusive proof against adoption, as school boards typically recognise biological parents unless a registered adoption deed is presented.

Court’s Judgment:

The bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta rejected the Union’s contention, ruling that adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, does not require a registered deed as a mandatory condition. The Court clarified that an adoption can be valid through customary methods or by performing the act of giving and taking, which may later be reduced to writing and registration. The Court emphasised that once an adoption deed is registered, it carries a legal presumption of validity, subject to rebuttal under Section 16 of the Act.

The Court also noted that the absence of an adoptive parent’s name in the Class 10th certificate does not invalidate an adoption. Since the Punjab School Education Board would only modify parental names based on a registered adoption deed, it was natural that Kaur’s school records still reflected her biological parents’ names. The Court stated that a compassionate appointment cannot be denied merely on this technicality.

In its ruling, the Court underscored that the date of birth of the applicant, 23rd March 1997, and the adoption date, 12th January 2010, clearly showed that Kaur was adopted while she was still a minor. The delayed registration of the deed in 2017 did not affect the legality of the adoption. The Court concluded that Kaur was rightfully entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment and dismissed the Union’s petition.