K. HEERAJOHN V. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, MADURAI & ANR. W.P(MD)NO.27615 OF 2025:

DATE: 17/10/2025

COURT: High Court of Madras

BENCH: Justice G.R. Swaminathan

FACTS:

The writ petitioner, a Muslim man, was married to one Kadhan Beevi. The couple, however, did not have any children. The petitioner’s brother had passed away, leaving behind his wife, Amjad Beevi, and three children as his surviving legal heirs. Among them was Mohammed Saleem, a minor aged about eight years. The widowed sister-in-law, Amjad Beevi, expressed her willingness to give the said child in adoption to the petitioner and his wife, who were eager to adopt him. Consequently, an adoption deed was executed on 13.09.2025 and presented before the registering authority for registration. However, the registering authority refused to register the document, citing objections based on the parties’ religious background, which led the petitioner to approach the High Court through the present writ petition.

The core dispute arose because the parties profess Islam, a religion that traditionally does not recognize the concept of adoption in the same manner as codified under statutory law. The registering authority’s refusal was based on this personal law restriction. The petitioner contended that despite Islamic law not recognizing adoption, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and its 2015 amendment (JJ Act, 2015), provide a secular legal framework enabling adoption irrespective of one’s religion. Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 1, the petitioner argued that adoption under the JJ Act is an optional, enabling right available to all citizens, including Muslims and Christians, who otherwise lack such provision under their personal laws.

ISSUES:

The key issue before the Madras High Court was whether the Muslim couple (the writ petitioner and his wife) could legally adopt a child under Islamic law by executing and registering a private adoption deed, or whether they were required to follow the procedure prescribed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Adoption Regulations, 2022. Additionally, the Court examined whether the registering authority was justified in refusing registration of the adoption deed and whether Muslim Personal Law could override the secular provisions of the JJ Act in matters of adoption.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to issue a mandamus directing the registration of the adoption deed. However, it permitted the parties to proceed with adoption by following the procedure prescribed under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the Adoption Regulations, 2022. The Court directed the District Child Protection Unit to complete verification within three weeks of application and the District Magistrate to dispose of the adoption request within three weeks thereafter, emphasizing the need for efficiency and sensitivity in handling adoption matters.

The Court held that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, being a secular and enabling legislation, prevails over personal laws in matters of adoption. A combined reading of Sections 1(4) and 63 of the JJ Act, 2015, in the light of Article 15(3) of the Constitution, makes it clear that the statute intends to protect the best interests of the child, irrespective of the adopter’s religion. Thus, while Islamic law does not traditionally recognize adoption, the JJ Act allows Muslims and Christians to adopt in accordance with its statutory scheme. The Court cited Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 1 to affirm that adoption under the JJ Act is optional, and those wishing to adopt must follow the procedures laid down by the statute. It clarified that executing a simple deed of adoption and seeking registration is not legally sufficient or valid for Muslims, as personal law restrictions cannot override a welfare-oriented statutory framework enacted to ensure the protection and rehabilitation of children.

Further, the Court emphasized that adoption is not merely a personal or religious act but a legal and social institution designed to secure the welfare of children. It stressed that authorities under the JJ Act must interpret the law purposively to uphold the child’s best interest. The Court rejected the mechanical insistence on “consent” of a child above five years as literal compliance and clarified that the District Magistrate should instead ascertain the child’s wishes contextually. It also highlighted systemic delays in India’s adoption process, noting that prolonged waiting periods and procedural hurdles often deprive children of nurturing homes. The judgment underscored that while the right to adopt is not yet recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21, it is undoubtedly a human right rooted in the right to found a family, as recognized by international conventions. Hence, the Court’s decision balanced adherence to statutory procedure with the broader humanitarian objective of facilitating timely and child-centred adoptions.

ANALYSIS:

The Madras High Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the secular and inclusive nature of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, as a progressive legislative framework that transcends religious barriers. By refusing to recognize a privately executed adoption deed under Muslim personal law, the Court underscored that adoption, when governed by statute, is a legal institution rooted in child welfare rather than a purely religious act. The judgment harmonizes constitutional principles such as equality and non-discrimination under Article 15(3) with the statutory intent of the JJ Act, ensuring that every citizen, regardless of faith, can access the legal mechanism for adoption. In doing so, the Court followed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India (2014), which recognized adoption as an enabling right available to all, provided the statutory process is followed.

Furthermore, the Court’s reasoning reflects a child-centric approach to justice. By directing that the adoption process under the JJ Act and Adoption Regulations, 2022, be completed within specific timeframes, the Court addressed the chronic delays that often hinder child rehabilitation and placement in nurturing homes. Its observations emphasized that while personal laws may guide individual belief systems, they cannot override secular welfare legislation aimed at protecting children’s rights. The Court also recognized adoption as a human right within the broader framework of the right to found a family, aligning domestic jurisprudence with international conventions. Overall, this judgment balances respect for personal law with the primacy of statutory procedure, promoting a humanitarian vision of adoption that upholds both constitutional and child welfare principles.