Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

“The Juvenile Justice Act will not apply to adoptions made under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The administrative authority cannot nullify a civil court decree by citing Adoption Regulations.” — In a significant ruling fortifying the supremacy of personal law in matters of adoption, the Madras High Court quashed the rejection of a plea by adoptive parents to have their names incorporated in the birth certificate of their adopted daughter. The Court held that adoptions made under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAM Act) are expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and that the requirement of an adoption order from the District Magistrate under the Juvenile Justice Act and Adoption Regulations, 2022, does not apply.

Justice M. Dhandapani declared the rejection order passed by the Registrar of Births and Deaths as “legally flawed, administratively overreaching, and contrary to settled legal principles.”

“Section 56(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act Is a Complete Bar”: HAM Act Adoptions Fall Outside Juvenile Justice Framework

At the heart of the dispute was the petitioner’s request to correct the birth certificate of his adopted daughter, K.S. Saatvika, by including his and his wife’s names as adoptive parents. The child was adopted from her biological mother Vijayalakshmi through a registered adoption deed and after performing Datta Homam in accordance with Hindu rites on 5.5.2022. A civil suit confirming the validity of the adoption was decreed in the petitioner’s favour on 30.11.2023.

Despite this, the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Puducherry, rejected the request on the ground that no adoption order had been issued by the District Magistrate, as allegedly required under Regulation 40 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022.

Rejecting this logic, the Court ruled: “The only order sought to be assailed is the administrative rejection that runs contrary to a valid adoption under the HAM Act. The Juvenile Justice Act does not apply. Section 56(3) of the JJ Act categorically states that ‘nothing in this Act shall apply to the adoption of children made under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956’.”

“Registrar Cannot Override a Civil Court Decree with Executive Discretion”

The petitioner had also obtained a declaration and injunction decree from the civil court, establishing that the adopted child was the lawful daughter of the petitioner and his wife. The Court emphasized that this decree had attained finality, and the administrative authority had no jurisdiction to negate or disregard it.

Justice Dhandapani observed: “When the civil court has granted the relief of declaration and injunction... the respondents are bound by the decree passed in the suit. The decree cannot be set at naught by means of an administrative order... Such an act is clearly an administrative overreach.”

“District Magistrate’s Role Under Adoption Regulations Cannot Nullify Hindu Personal Law”

The respondents relied on Regulations 40 and 69 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, claiming that a District Magistrate’s adoption order was mandatory for incorporation of adoptive parents’ names. The Court, however, held that these regulations apply only to children falling under the JJ Act, such as orphans, abandoned or surrendered children, and not to voluntary private adoptions under Hindu law.

Justice Dhandapani clarified: “The role of the District Magistrate under Regulation 69 is not for clearing adoption made under the HAM Act. The Act is a self-contained code... Regulation 69 cannot override Section 56(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act.”

He further noted that Regulation 4 of the 2022 Regulations lists the categories of children eligible for adoption under the JJ Act and does not include children given voluntarily under personal law.

“Consent of Biological Father Not Required Where His Identity Is Unknown”

A key contention of the respondents was that the biological father’s consent was not obtained, as allegedly required under Section 9(2) of the HAM Act. The Court rejected this argument, noting that:

• The biological mother was a major (aged 18 years and 6 months) at the time of adoption.

• The identity of the father was unknown, and no proceedings were initiated under POCSO or other relevant laws.

• The mother had participated in the adoption and her testimony in the civil suit confirmed her consent.

Justice Dhandapani held: “Without the father of the child being known, seeking the consent of the father would not arise. Execution of the adoption deed by the grandparents with the concurrence of the mother is sufficient compliance.”

“Adoption Laws Must Serve the Welfare of the Child, Not Obstruct It”

The Court underscored that both the HAM Act and the JJ Act are welfare legislations, and authorities must ensure their implementation serves the best interests of the child. Any rigid interpretation of regulations that obstructs permanency, identity, and stability of the adopted child must be discouraged.

In powerful words, the Court stated: “This is a classic case of the authorities trying to block the interests of the child... The concept of adoption is only to facilitate permanent care and protection of the child... Intricacies in the process should be oiled to the benefit of the child, not be a hampering force.”

Having found the rejection order illegal, the Court issued the following directions: “The impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is contrary to law and the same is set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to issue a fresh birth certificate incorporating the name of the child and the name of the petitioner and his wife, K. Sheela as the adoptive parents... within a period of four weeks.”

Madras High Court Reaffirms Autonomy of Hindu Personal Law in Adoption Matters

This judgment settles a vital legal question — adoptions made under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act do not require validation under the Juvenile Justice Act or the Adoption Regulations framed thereunder. The District Magistrate plays no role in such adoptions, and civil court decrees validating adoptions are binding on administrative authorities.

This ruling is especially significant at a time when conflicting interpretations of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, have created confusion regarding the procedure for correcting official records. The Court’s clear demarcation between adoptions under personal law and those under the JJ Act ensures both legal certainty and child welfare remain central.

Date of Decision: 25 October 2025