The Court strongly criticized the Registrar of Births and Deaths for disregarding a Civil Court decree that had already validated the adoption, labeling the refusal an "administrative overreach."
Chennai: In a significant judgment underscoring the welfare of the child and clarifying the jurisdiction of two key adoption laws, the Madras High Court has upheld the validity of an adoption deed executed by a child's grandparents, provided it was done with the concurrence of the biological mother.
Justice M. Dhandapani, in the case of A. Kannan v. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Ors., decisively ruled that such adoptions, carried out under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), do not require subsequent validation through an order from the District Magistrate, a requirement typically mandated under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).
The Administrative Standoff
The matter came before the High Court via a writ petition filed by A. Kannan, who challenged the rejection of his request by the Puducherry Registrar of Births and Deaths to update his adopted daughter's birth certificate.
Kannan and his wife had adopted the baby girl in May 2022 through Hindu rituals, followed by a registered adoption deed, with the full consent of the biological mother. The adoption was subsequently affirmed by a Civil Court decree, which had attained finality.
However, the Registrar refused to correct the birth certificate. The administrative authority contended that an adoption order from the District Magistrate was mandatory under the JJ Act and the Adoption Regulations, 2022, effectively stalling the child’s legal integration into the adoptive family.
Court Clarifies Scope of JJ Act
Rejecting the Registrar’s narrow interpretation, Justice Dhandapani emphasized the well-established judicial principle that the JJ Act applies exclusively to children categorized as Orphaned, Abandoned, or Surrendered (OAS), or those in conflict with the law.
Relying on previous rulings, the Court reiterated that the JJ Act does not govern adoptions made under the HAMA, where a child is voluntarily given up by a parent who is legally capable of doing so.
Crucially, the Court addressed the specific issue of the grandparents executing the adoption deed. Justice Dhandapani observed that the adoption's legality was substantiated by the biological mother’s sworn deposition in the earlier civil suit, where she confirmed giving the child in adoption to the petitioners.
“The mere fact that the grandparents of the child had executed the adoption deed alone cannot make the adoption deed invalid so long as it was executed with the concurrence of the mother of the child, who is none other than their daughter,” the judge held.
Civil Court Decree Cannot Be Overridden
The Court came down heavily on the Registrar for effectively sitting in judgment over a Civil Court decree.
Justice Dhandapani firmly stated that an administrative authority cannot disregard or override a decree issued by a competent Civil Court. Once the Civil Court had declared the adoption valid, that decree was binding on all government authorities.
The Court stressed that both HAMA and the JJ Act were enacted with a humanitarian purpose: to protect children and facilitate their integration into families. The laws are not meant to "create procedural hurdles" or blockage due to "administrative lacunae."
“The authorities at the helm of affairs are to see that the interests of the child are met and so long as the same are met, the intricacies in the process should be best oiled to the benefit of the child so that the adoption process is free and does not suffer blockage,” the bench concluded.
Setting aside the Registrar's impugned order, the Madras High Court directed the Puducherry authorities to issue a new birth certificate, reflecting Kannan and Sheela as the adoptive parents, within a period of four weeks.
The petitioner was represented by Mr. D. Ravichander, and the respondents by Mr. V. Vasanth Kumar (Govt. Advocate (P)).