Why did Madras High Court say Juvenile Justice Act overrides Muslim Personal Law in adoption cases

Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently ruled that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 would override Muslim Personal Law when it comes to adoption.

In an order dated October 17 seen by Moneycontrol, the High Court observed that “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.”

Section 1(4) of the JJ Act Act has provisions for governing all matters concerning children in need of care and protection and in conflict with law, including their adoption, social reintegration, apprehension, rehabilitation, among others.

While, section 63 of the JJ Act says that once an adoption order is issued by the District Magistrate , the adopted child if legally considered the same as the biological child of the adoptive parents.

Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India enables the State to make special provision for women and children despite prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth under Article 15.

Justice GR Swaminathan, who delivered the judgment, also raised serious concern about the administrative delays in adoption procedures. He remarked that such delays “deprive the child of the formative experiences and opportunities that could alter their life's trajectory.”

The judge pointed out that “as many as 13 prospective parents are waiting for every single child declared legally free for adoption,” which creates an imbalance. This, coupled with procedural bottlenecks, means that many children “spend their crucial early years in institutional care rather than in stable, loving homes.”

He stressed that authorities functioning under the JJ Act are duty-bound to expedite the process so that children can receive the “timely access to a nurturing environment essential for their overall well-being, development, and equitable life opportunities.”

The matter arose from a petition filed by a Muslim man whose adoption deed was refused registration. He and his wife, who did not have children of their own, sought to adopt the son of his late brother.

The child’s mother had agreed to the adoption, and an adoption deed was executed on September 13, 2025. However, the registering authority declined to register it, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.

While hearing the case, the court acknowledged that Islamic law does not recognize adoption, but clarified that the Juvenile Justice Acts of 2000 and 2015 “enable adoption by willing parents de hors their religious background.” This means willing parents can adopt regardless of their religious background under the Act.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shabnam Hasmi v. Union of India (2014), the Court said that the JJ Act provides individuals with a choice -- either to adopt under the provisions of the JJ Act or to choose not to do by following the dictates of their personal laws.

Thus, though religions like Islam and Christianity do not recognise adoption traditionally, their followers are legally free to adopt a child in terms of the statutory scheme of the JJ Act, the Court said.

At the same time, Justice Swaminathan noted that Section 56(3) of the JJ Act specifically excludes Hindus from its ambit, as they already have a separate personal law governing adoption in in Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Hence, the court said that the particular section makes it clear that its provisions will not apply to adoption of children made under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Since the parties in this case were Muslims, they were required to follow the procedures prescribed under the JJ Act 2015 and the Adoption Regulations 2022, according to the judgment.

Although the relief sought by the petitioner seeking the Court to issue Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the Sub Registrar of Melur East to register the adoption deed was denied, it asked the parties to proceed under Adoption Regulations 2022.

It further instructed the Child Protection Unit to finish verification within three weeks after the application is uploaded on the portal, and the District Magistrate to dispose of the matter within three weeks.

The Court also made it clear that “the parties could not seek the easy option of executing an adoption deed and getting it registered.” Instead, they must approach the District Child Protection Unit and the District Magistrate, as mandated by the law.

The court further elaborated on the “consent of child” clause under the Adoption Regulations 2022, emphasising that it must be understood “holistically,” and that the District Magistrate must be satisfied that the adoption is indeed in the child’s welfare while also considering the child’s own views.