The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in a significant ruling, has held that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (JJ Act) do not apply to adoptions validly conducted under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, (HAM Act).
In a judgment delivered on October 25, 2025, Justice M. Dhandapani quashed an order by the Sub Registrar of Birth & Death, Puducherry, which had refused to issue a birth certificate naming the adoptive parents. The court ruled that the Registrar’s insistence on an “adoption order” from the District Magistrate under the JJ Act was “wholly flawed” and constituted “administrative overreach,” especially when a competent civil court had already declared the adoption valid.
The court directed the 3rd respondent, the Sub Registrar, to issue a fresh birth certificate incorporating the names of the adoptive parents within four weeks.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, A. Kannan, filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 39430 of 2025) after the Sub Registrar, on February 19, 2024, rejected his application to amend a child’s birth certificate.
According to the petition, Mr. Kannan and his wife, K. Sheela, were married in 2006 but remained childless. They decided to adopt a child, K.S. Saatvika, who was born on April 26, 2022, to Ms. Vijayalakshmi. The judgment noted that Ms. Vijayalakshmi, then 18, was in “absolute penury” and, along with the child’s grandparents (P. Sakarapani and S. Sudha), consented to give the child for adoption.
The adoption was performed on May 5, 2022, as per Hindu Rites and Customs, including the “Datta Homam” ceremony. Subsequently, a formal Adoption Deed was registered with the Sub Registrar, Puducherry, on September 7, 2022 (Doc. No. 1595/2022).
Following a dispute with his brother regarding the child’s status, the petitioner filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 189 of 2023) in the Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry. This suit, which was contested by the petitioner’s brother as well as the biological mother and grandparents, sought a declaration that K.S. Saatvika was the lawfully adopted daughter of the petitioner and his wife.
On November 30, 2023, the civil court decreed the suit in the petitioner’s favor, and this decree attained finality as no appeal was filed.
When the petitioner approached the Sub Registrar (3rd respondent) to update the birth certificate (which originally only named the biological mother) with the child’s new name and the adoptive parents’ names, the request was rejected. The Registrar’s impugned order insisted that the petitioner must obtain an adoption order from the District Magistrate under the JJ Act.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. D. Ravichander, argued that the Registrar’s order was illegal. He contended that the child was not “a child in conflict with law” and that the adoption was governed by the HAM Act, which is a complete code in itself. He emphasized that a binding civil court decree had already validated the adoption, and the JJ Act was not applicable.
The respondents, represented by Mr. V. Vasanthkumar, Addl. Government Pleader (P), countered that the adoption was doubtful. They argued that since the biological mother was 18 years and 6 months old at the child’s birth, the POCSO Act was attracted concerning the conception. They also claimed the adoption was invalid under Section 9 of the HAM Act because the biological father’s consent was not obtained. Citing Regulation 40 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, the respondents insisted that a birth certificate could only be issued based on an adoption order from the District Magistrate.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
Mr. Justice M. Dhandapani rejected the respondents’ arguments, finding the impugned order “contrary to law.”
1. On Applicability of JJ Act vs. HAM Act: The court held that the central issue was which law applied. It cited Section 56(3) of the JJ Act, which states: “Nothing in this Act shall apply to the adoption of children made under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956”.
The court found: “From the above, it is abundantly clear that the Juvenile Justice Act would not have any overriding effect over the Hindu Personal law in view of Section 56 (3) of the Juvenile Justice Act…”
It further clarified that the JJ Act and its regulations apply only to children who are “abandoned,” “in conflict with law,” “orphan,” or “surrendered” (as defined under Section 2 of the JJ Act), and not to a child given in adoption under personal law (HAM Act).
2. On the Validity of the Adoption (Section 9, HAM Act): The court dismissed the respondents’ challenge regarding the biological father’s consent. It noted the respondents’ own admission that the biological father was unknown. The court observed, “…without the father of the child being known, seeking the consent of the father would not arise.”
Furthermore, the court noted that the biological mother had deposed in the civil suit, confirming she had given the child in adoption. The court held that the adoption deed being executed by the grandparents “with the concurrence of the mother” did not invalidate it.
3. On the Effect of the Civil Court Decree: The High Court gave significant weight to the decree from O.S. No. 189/2023. It dismissed the respondents’ claim that the suit was “collusive,” stating the government was not a necessary party to an adoption under the HAM Act.
Critically, the court held: “When the civil court has granted the relief of declaration and injunction as sought for by the petitioner… which has attained finality, the respondents are bound by the decree… The administrative orders cannot nullify a decree passed by the court of law and the said order of the 3rd respondent is clearly an administrative overreach, which cannot be permitted to continue.”
4. On the Object of Benevolent Legislations: The court concluded by observing that both the HAM Act and the JJ Act are “benevolent legislations” intended to protect the child. It stated, “This is one such classic case of the authorities trying to block the interests of the child, which was not the intention of the benevolent piece of legislation…”
Final Order
The High Court set aside the Sub Registrar’s order dated February 19, 2024, and directed the 3rd respondent to issue a fresh birth certificate to the petitioner, incorporating the child’s name as K.S. Saatvika and the names of the petitioner (A. Kannan) and his wife (K. Sheela) as the adoptive parents. This direction is to be complied with within four weeks.
