Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Muslim Personal Law; Adopted Child Has Same Status As Biological Child : Madras High Court

“A combined reading of Section 1(4) and 63 of the JJ Act, 2015 in the light of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India leads me to conclude that it will prevail over Muslim Personal Law and an adopted child will have the same status of a biological child in all matters and an adopted child cannot be given a second class status,” the court said.

Justice GR Swaminathan also highlighted administrative delays in adoption procedures and said that such delays deprive the child of the formative experiences and opportunities that could alter their life's trajectory. The court thus highlighted that the authorities under the Juvenile Justice Act are obliged to speed up the adoption process.

“Some reports indicate that as many as 13 prospective parents are waiting for every single child declared legally free for adoption. This imbalance along with procedural delays means that many children spend their crucial early years in institutional care rather than in stable, loving homes. Such delays risk denying them the timely access to a nurturing environment essential for their overall well-being, development, and equitable life opportunities,” the court highlighted.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a Muslim man against the registering authority's refusal to register an adoption deed presented by him. It was submitted that he and his wife did not have any children of their own, and when his brother passed away, leaving behind his wife and three children, his wife came forward to give one child in adoption to the petitioner and his wife. The adoption deed dated September 13, 2025, was executed and presented for adoption, but the authorities refused to register it. Against this, the petition was filed.

The court noted that though the Islamic religion does not recognise adoption, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, both the 2000 and the 2015 ones, allowed adoption by willing parents de hors their religious background.

The court also noted that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Shabnam Hasmi v Union of India, the Juvenile Justice Act gave a choice to the persons to either adopt by following the provisions of the Act or by following the dictates of the personal law applicable to them. This meant that even though Islam and Christianity did not recognise adoption, a person belonging to these religions was free to adopt as per the statutory scheme.

However, the court added that the provisions of the Act would not apply to the adoption of Hindus since it had been specifically excluded under Section 56(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015.

In the present case, the court noted that since the parties were Muslims, they had to follow the procedure laid down un the JJ Act 2015 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. The court noted that as per the Adoption Regulations 2022, the parties had to approach the District Child Protection Unit and the District Magistrate. The court added that the parties could not seek the easy option of executing an adoption deed and getting it registered.

The court also highlighted that the term “consent of child” provided under the Regulations should be understood holistically and the District Magistrate should satisfy itself that the adoption is for the welfare of the child and must give due consideration to the child's wishes.

Thus, though the court was not inclined to grant the relief sought for, the court directed the parties to proceed under the procedure laid down in the Adoption Regulations 2022. The court also directed the Child Protection Unit to complete the verification process within 3 weeks after the application is uploaded in the portal and also directed the District Magistrate to dispose of the application within 3 weeks.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. Pandian

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader

Case Title: K Heerajohn v. The District Registrar and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 365

Case No: W.P(MD)No.27615 of 2025