In a landmark judgment reaffirming that statutory adoption rights transcend religious boundaries, the Madras High Court in K. Heerajohn v. District Registrar, Madurai District & Anr. [W.P. (MD) No. 27615 of 2025, decided on 17 October 2025] held that adoption under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) is uniform and secular in nature, not constrained by any personal law.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan clarified that the JJ Act confers an equal right to adopt upon all citizens, regardless of their faith, and that once adoption is validly made under the Act, the adopted child enjoys the same legal status as a biological one.
The decision, which harmonises personal law, statutory law, and constitutional principles, underscores that the JJ Act prevails over conflicting religious prescriptions and establishes uniform adoption rights for all.
Factual Background
The petitioner, K. Heerajohn, a Muslim, was married to Kadhan Beevi. The couple was childless. Heerajohn’s brother had passed away, leaving behind his widow, Amjad Beevi, and three children. One of these children, Mohammed Saleem, aged eight, was proposed to be given in adoption to Heerajohn and his wife.
An adoption deed dated 13 September 2025 was executed and presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Melur East, Madurai District. The registering authority, however, refused to register the deed, citing that Islamic personal law does not recognise adoption in the same sense as statutory law does.
Aggrieved by this refusal, the petitioner approached the Madras High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution to compel the registration of the adoption deed.
Issues
- Whether Muslims can adopt a child under the JJ Act, 2015, despite their personal law not recognising adoption.
- Whether the Registrar is obliged to register an adoption deed executed by Muslim parties.
- Whether the JJ Act overrides personal laws in matters of adoption.
- Whether the status of an adopted child under the JJ Act is equal to that of a biological child.
Court’s Observations
1. Personal Law and Statutory Adoption Framework
Justice G.R. Swaminathan acknowledged that under Islamic law, the concept of adoption as understood in statutory law does not exist. Instead, Islam recognises “kafala” — a system where a person assumes responsibility for the care and maintenance of a child without creating legal parentage or inheritance rights.
However, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that the JJ Act provides a secular and enabling framework permitting adoption by anyone willing to comply with its provisions, irrespective of their religion.
Thus, while personal law may not permit adoption, citizens are free to adopt under the JJ Act, a special legislation that embodies the constitutional spirit of equality and child welfare.
2. JJ Act Prevails Over Personal Laws
The Court examined Section 1(4) of the JJ Act, which explicitly provides that the Act shall apply to all matters concerning children in need of care and protection, “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force.”
This “notwithstanding clause,” Justice Swaminathan noted, makes the JJ Act supreme in the field of child adoption and welfare. Personal laws cannot override or limit the statutory right to adopt.
Citing Article 15(3) of the Constitution, the Court observed that the State is empowered to make special provisions for women and children, further strengthening the JJ Act’s applicability across religions.
“A combined reading of Section 1(4) and 63 of the JJ Act, 2015, in the light of Article 15(3), leads to the conclusion that it will prevail over Muslim Personal Law. An adopted child will have the same status as a biological child in all matters and cannot be given a second-class status,” the Court held.
3. Procedure under the JJ Act and Adoption Regulations, 2022
Justice Swaminathan emphasised that the JJ Act, 2015, read with the Adoption Regulations, 2022, lays down a detailed statutory procedure for adoption — including adoption among relatives.
Key steps include:
- Registration of prospective adoptive parents on the designated CARA portal;
- Consent of biological parents or permission from the Child Welfare Committee (CWC);
- Verification by the District Child Protection Unit (DCPU);
- Approval by the State Adoption Resource Agency (SARA); and
- Issuance of the adoption order by the District Magistrate, replacing the earlier judicial process.
Once an adoption order is issued under Section 63, the adopted child is deemed, for all legal purposes, including succession, to be the biological child of the adoptive parents.
The Court stressed that mere execution and registration of an adoption deed do not create a valid adoption; compliance with the statutory procedure is mandatory.
4. Registration of Adoption Deeds
While the Registration Act, 1908 permits the optional registration of adoption deeds, the Court clarified that registration cannot replace the formal adoption process mandated by the JJ Act.
A Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration outright, but such registration has no legal effect unless the adoption order is issued by the competent authority. Muslims or members of any faith must therefore follow the JJ Act’s statutory mechanism rather than relying solely on personal or customary practices.
5. Procedural Safeguards and the Role of Authorities
The Court directed the parties to follow the correct procedure under the Adoption Regulations, 2022, and instructed the authorities to ensure that the process is time-bound and transparent.
Specifically:
- The District Child Protection Unit must complete verification within three weeks of application.
- The District Magistrate must issue the adoption order within three weeks thereafter.
- Once the adoption order is issued, no separate registration is required.
Justice Swaminathan took note of delays in adoption cases across India, citing an editorial from The Hindu (25 July 2025) titled “Should India Relax Its Adoption Procedures?”, which lamented that 13 prospective parents await every single child declared legally free for adoption, leading to avoidable emotional and developmental harm for children.
6. Uniform Adoption Rights under the JJ Act
The Court categorically held that the JJ Act creates a uniform legal right to adopt applicable to all citizens, irrespective of their religion. Adoption under the Act is a secular process grounded in child welfare and equality.
This uniformity, the Court observed, is essential to uphold the constitutional promise of non-discrimination. The JJ Act’s design ensures that no child or prospective parent faces exclusion based on personal belief systems.
“An adopted child will have the same status as a biological child in all matters. The JJ Act, being a special, secular legislation, has an overriding effect over personal laws,” the Court declared.
Impact of the Judgment
- Uniformity in Adoption Law: The decision confirms that all citizens can adopt under the JJ Act, making adoption rights truly uniform across India.
- Guidance for Authorities: It clarifies the procedural hierarchy under the JJ Act and the Adoption Regulations, 2022, ensuring that officials act within the statutory framework.
- Promotion of Child Welfare: By urging faster processing of adoption applications, the judgment promotes early rehabilitation and family placement for children.
- Judicial Clarity: It distinguishes between registration of adoption deeds and statutory adoption orders, removing long-standing administrative confusion.
- Social Acceptance: The judgment helps destigmatise adoption within minority communities by assuring that religion is no barrier to forming a family through lawful adoption.
Conclusion
Madras High Court’s ruling in K. Heerajohn v. District Registrar is a progressive and inclusive judgment that strengthens India’s secular and humanitarian legal framework. It underscores that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 provides a uniform, secular mechanism for adoption, applicable to every citizen, regardless of religion.
By affirming that personal laws cannot restrict adoption rights, and that an adopted child stands equal to a biological one, the Court has upheld the constitutional principles of equality, dignity, and child welfare.
Ultimately, this judgment ensures that faith cannot be a barrier to love — and that every child, whether biological or adopted, is entitled to the same affection, status, and security in law.