Introduction:

In X & Anr. v. Child Welfare Committee, Writ Petition No. 18481 of 2021, the Karnataka High Court addressed a deeply human and legally complex question concerning the adoption of a child who had been abandoned as a newborn and raised for nearly ten years by a married couple in their fifties. Justice D.K. Singh was called upon to balance procedural compliance under the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act and the Juvenile Justice Model Rules 2016 with the paramount consideration of the child’s welfare. The petitioners, devotees of Sri Gavisiddeshwara Swami Mutt, had taken custody of a three day old child in June 2016 after he was found abandoned at the Mutt. Acting upon the advice of the Swamiji, they brought the child into their home and raised him as their own. Over the years, the child grew under their care, received education, and became fully integrated into their family life. However, questions arose regarding the legality of custody and the mandatory role of the Child Welfare Committee under Rules 18 and 19 of the Model Rules 2016, which require an inquiry into children in need of care and protection. The case therefore presented a conflict between procedural compliance and the settled emotional and developmental environment of a child who had known no other parents.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioners, a married couple aged approximately 51 and 54 years, submitted that in 2016 they discovered a three day old infant abandoned at Gavi Siddheshwara Swami Mutt. On the advice and guidance of the Swamiji of the Mutt, they assumed custody of the child on 10 June 2016. From that date onward, they asserted, they provided the child with shelter, food, medical care, emotional security, and education. They enrolled him in pre school and subsequently ensured his continued education in a reputed school where he is presently studying in the fourth standard at the age of about 9.5 years. They emphasised that they have no surviving biological child of their own and that they have treated the child as their son in every respect. The petitioners argued that the welfare of the child, which is the paramount consideration under Indian child protection jurisprudence, is best served in their custody. They submitted that the Child Welfare Committee had issued a notice in July 2017 summoning them to explain the legality of custody, and that they duly appeared before the Committee. Thereafter, according to them, no further meaningful action was taken for a considerable period. In February 2020, the Committee issued a paper publication stating that a complaint had been received alleging illegal custody and inviting any person claiming to be the child’s parents or having knowledge of them to come forward. Despite such publication, no biological parent or relative surfaced. The petitioners highlighted that the whereabouts of the biological parents remain unknown to date. They further submitted that in August 2021 they formally applied for foster care under the Model Guidelines for Foster Care 2016. However, instead of expediting the process, the child was taken into the custody of the Committee. When they sought return of custody, they did not receive a favourable response, compelling them to approach the High Court. They pointed out that on 8 October 2021, the High Court had directed that custody be restored to them, subject to visitation rights granted to the Committee for supervisory purposes. Since compliance with that order, the child has continuously remained in their custody. The petitioners argued that forcibly removing the child after nearly a decade would be traumatic and inhuman, severely affecting his emotional stability and development. They contended that any procedural lapse in not approaching the Committee immediately after taking custody was unintentional and attributable to lack of legal awareness rather than mala fide intention. They urged the Court to direct the Central Adoption Resource Authority to process their pending adoption application expeditiously after the Child Welfare Committee completes its inquiry under the Model Rules.

Arguments of the Child Welfare Committee and Authorities:

Counsel for the Child Welfare Committee submitted that the statutory framework under the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act and the Model Rules 2016 mandates that any child found abandoned must be produced before the Committee. The Committee is entrusted with the responsibility under Rules 18 and 19 to conduct an inquiry and determine the child’s status as a child in need of care and protection. It was contended that the petitioners did not immediately produce the child before the Committee and were therefore in unauthorised custody for a period. A complaint was received alleging illegal custody, prompting issuance of notice in July 2017 and subsequent paper publication in 2020 inviting claims from biological parents. The Committee argued that statutory procedure cannot be bypassed even if the intention of the caretakers appears benevolent. The Counsel submitted that the Committee must be permitted to conduct a proper inquiry as mandated by law to ascertain whether the child’s welfare is indeed secured in the petitioners’ custody. The authorities did not dispute that the child has been residing with the petitioners for several years, but emphasised that legal adoption requires compliance with statutory processes, including declaration of the child as legally free for adoption. The Counsel requested that the petitioners be directed to produce the child before the Committee so that the inquiry could be completed in accordance with Rule 19 and that only thereafter could a lawful decision be taken regarding adoption.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice D.K. Singh carefully considered the statutory scheme and the factual matrix. The Court noted that Rules 18 and 19 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules 2016 assign the Child Welfare Committee the responsibility of conducting an inquiry in cases involving children in need of care and protection. The Court observed that the child in question was abandoned at the Gavi Siddheshwara Swami Mutt three days after birth and was subsequently given into the custody of the petitioners by the Swamiji on 10 June 2016. It acknowledged that the child has since grown up under the petitioners’ care and is presently around 9.5 years old, studying in the fourth standard in a good school. The Court emphasised that the paramount consideration in such matters is the welfare, care, and protection of the child. It opined that the child’s welfare appears to be secured in the hands of the petitioners who have been looking after him as their own child. At the same time, the Court recognised that procedural compliance under the Model Rules had not been strictly adhered to at the initial stage. It observed that perhaps due to procedural and legal oversight, the petitioners did not approach the Committee immediately as mandated. In order to reconcile statutory requirements with the welfare principle, the Court directed the petitioners to produce the child before the Child Welfare Committee in Bengaluru on 10 March 2026. The Committee was directed to conduct an inquiry under Rule 19 to determine whether the child’s welfare is indeed secured in the petitioners’ custody. The Court clarified that during the pendency of such inquiry, the child shall remain in the custody of the petitioners. Further, the Court directed that upon completion of the inquiry, the petitioners’ adoption application shall be processed expeditiously. If the petitioners are found eligible to adopt the child, the child shall be given to them in adoption in accordance with law. The Central Adoption Resource Authority at Bengaluru was directed to process the application promptly once the Committee completes its inquiry. By disposing of the plea in this manner, the Court ensured adherence to statutory safeguards while protecting the emotional and developmental stability of the child. The order reflects a nuanced balance between procedural compliance and the overarching doctrine that the welfare of the child is supreme in matters concerning custody and adoption.