Reforming Adoption Law in India: A Constitutional Analysis of the Juvenile Justice Amendment Act, 2021

Abstract

Adoption is a legal process that permanently establishes a parent-child relationship and secures a child’s right to a stable family environment.[1] In India, adoptions are primarily governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Adoption Regulations framed by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA).[2][3] To address procedural delays, Parliament enacted the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021, transferring the power to issue adoption orders from civil courts to District Magistrates.[4] While intended to improve administrative efficiency, the amendment raised constitutional concerns regarding procedural fairness and the exercise of quasi-judicial powers by executive authorities.[1] This article analyses the constitutional validity of the amendment through Nisha Pradeep Pandya v. Union of India and examines its broader implications alongside Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India.[5][6] It argues that adoption reforms must balance efficiency with constitutional safeguards, equality, and the best interests of the child.[1]

I. Introduction

Adoption is one of the most significant institutions of family law because it permanently creates a legal parent-child relationship, conferring on the adopted child the same rights and responsibilities as a biological child.[1] Beyond its legal consequences, adoption offers orphaned, abandoned, and surrendered children the opportunity to grow up in stable and supportive families.[1] At the same time, the adoption process must ensure that decisions affecting a child’s future are made fairly, transparently, and without unnecessary delay.[1]

Although India’s adoption laws have evolved considerably over the years, they continue to reflect the difficult balance between protecting children’s rights and ensuring an efficient legal process.[1] As adoption involves the permanent creation of a legal family, the law must not only facilitate timely placements but also ensure that every decision is taken through a fair, transparent, and accountable procedure.[1] This balance became the focus of constitutional debate following the enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021, which shifted the power to issue adoption orders from civil courts to District Magistrates.[4]

The amendment sparked important questions about the limits of legislative reform and the extent to which adjudicatory powers may be entrusted to executive authorities.[1] These issues came before the Bombay High Court in Nisha Pradeep Pandya v. Union of India, while the Supreme Court’s decision in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India highlighted the continuing constitutional debate on equality and access to adoption.[5][6] Against this backdrop, this article evaluates whether recent reforms have merely accelerated the adoption process or have also strengthened India’s commitment to constitutional values and the welfare of children.[1]

II. Understanding the Legal Framework Governing Adoption in India

Before examining the constitutional validity of the 2021 Amendment, it is important to understand the legal framework governing adoption in India.[1] Unlike many countries that have a single adoption law, India follows a plural legal system in which different statutes regulate adoption depending on the personal law of the parties and the circumstances of the child.[1]

Historically, adoption in India was closely associated with religion and personal law.[1] Under traditional Hindu law, it primarily served to continue family lineage and fulfil religious obligations.[1] Over time, however, the focus of adoption shifted towards child welfare, recognising adoption as a means of providing children with permanent and secure families.[1]

Today, adoption is mainly governed by two legal frameworks:[1]

• Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA): Applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, regulating adoptions within those specific communities.[7]
• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act): Provides a secular, child-centric framework allowing any eligible person, irrespective of religion, to adopt a child declared legally free for adoption.[2]

The JJ Act is supported by the Adoption Regulations, 2022, framed by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), the statutory body responsible for regulating adoptions in India.[3] Together, the Act and Regulations establish a structured procedure that includes declaring a child legally free for adoption, assessing prospective adoptive parents through home study reports, and supervising placements.[2][3]

Before 2021, the final adoption order could only be issued by a competent civil court under Section 61 of the JJ Act.[2] Although earlier stages were completed administratively, judicial approval requirements often resulted in delays due to court backlogs.[1] To address this problem, Parliament enacted the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021, transferring the power to issue adoption orders from civil courts to District Magistrates (DM) and Additional District Magistrates (ADM).[4]

III. Why Did Parliament Transfer Adoption Powers to District Magistrates?

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021 was introduced to address delays in the final stage of the adoption process.[4] Although the legal framework already provided detailed safeguards for assessing children and prospective adoptive parents, every adoption still required approval from a civil court before it became legally effective.[1][2] Parliament observed that by the time an adoption petition reached the court, the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Specialised Adoption Agencies (SAAs), and CARA had already completed substantive scrutiny.[1] The requirement of judicial approval therefore often became the primary cause of delay.[1]

The Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Amendment stated that prolonged court proceedings prevented children from being placed in permanent families at the earliest opportunity.[4] To reduce these delays, Parliament amended Section 61 of the JJ Act and transferred the power to issue adoption orders to District Magistrates.[2][4]

Importantly, the amendment did not alter the substantive law governing adoption.[1] The eligibility of prospective adoptive parents, the declaration of a child as legally free for adoption, the role of CARA, and the safeguards contained in the Adoption Regulations remained unchanged.[1][3] The reform only changed the administrative authority responsible for granting the final adoption order.[1][4]

Despite its objective of improving efficiency, the amendment attracted constitutional criticism.[1] Critics argued that adoption permanently determines a child’s legal identity and family status and therefore should remain within the jurisdiction of independent courts.[1] In contrast, supporters maintained that District Magistrates perform this function in a quasi-judicial capacity and continue to be bound by the procedural safeguards prescribed under the Act.[1]

IV. The Bombay High Court’s Decision: Balancing Efficiency with Constitutional Safeguards

The constitutional validity of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021 was challenged before the Bombay High Court in Nisha Pradeep Pandya v. Union of India.[5] The petitioners argued that transferring the power to issue adoption orders from civil courts to District Magistrates was unconstitutional because adoption permanently determines a child’s legal status and should therefore remain exclusively within the judiciary.[1][5]

The Union Government defended the amendment by submitting that Parliament had merely changed the authority issuing the final adoption order while retaining all substantive safeguards under the JJ Act and Adoption Regulations.[1][3][5] Before an application reached the District Magistrate, the child had already been declared legally free for adoption, the prospective adoptive parents had undergone detailed assessment, and the process remained subject to CARA supervision.[1][3][5]

The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the amendment.[5] It held that:[1][5]

• Quasi-Judicial Power of Executive Authorities: The Constitution does not require every adjudicatory function to be exercised exclusively by civil courts. Parliament may confer quasi-judicial powers on executive authorities where adequate procedural safeguards exist.[1][5]
• Duty to Act Fairly: District Magistrates perform a quasi-judicial function under the amended Section 61 and are legally bound to act fairly, follow prescribed statutory procedure, and issue reasoned decisions.[1][2][5]
• Retention of Substantive Safeguards: The amendment did not dilute legal standards relating to adoptive parent eligibility, child status declarations, or CARA oversight.[1][3][5]

V. Did the Amendment Solve the Right Problem? A Critical Analysis

The Bombay High Court’s reasoning is persuasive as it recognises that institutional reform can be necessary to improve the functioning of the legal system.[1][5] However, the amendment also highlights the limitations of purely procedural reform:[1]

• Root Causes of Delay Unaddressed: Transferring adoption powers to District Magistrates simplifies the final approval stage but does not address systemic bottlenecks, such as shortages of Specialised Adoption Agencies (SAAs), delays in Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) declaring children legally free for adoption, or administrative backlogs.[1]
• Executive Capacity Concerns: District Magistrates handle extensive administrative, law-and-order, and revenue duties. Their effectiveness in exercising quasi-judicial adoption powers depends heavily on institutional resources, training, and support.[1]
• Balancing Speed with Quality: Because adoption involves lifelong consequences regarding family status, inheritance, and identity, speed must not compromise transparency, accountability, and fair decision-making.[1]

VI. Beyond Procedure: The Continuing Debate on Who Can Adopt

The constitutional debate on adoption extends beyond the authority responsible for approving adoptions to who is legally eligible to adopt.[1] This broader dimension was examined by the Supreme Court in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India.[6]

In Supriyo, petitioners challenged statutory provisions and CARA regulations that prevented unmarried couples, including queer couples, from jointly adopting children, arguing that such exclusions violated constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination under Articles 14, 15, and 21.[1][6] The Supreme Court declined to modify adoption regulations, holding that altering adoption policy was primarily a matter for legislative and executive determination.[6]

Together, Nisha Pradeep Pandya and Supriyo illustrate two distinct pillars of adoption law reform:[1][5][6]

1. Procedural Mechanism (How adoptions are granted): Addressed in Nisha Pradeep Pandya by streamlining administrative approvals while preserving procedural safeguards.[1][5]
2. Substantive Access (Who may participate): Addressed in Supriyo, highlighting ongoing constitutional debates regarding equality and inclusive family structures.[1][6]

VII. Conclusion

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021 represents a significant reform in India’s adoption framework by transferring adoption approval powers from civil courts to District Magistrates to reduce delays.[1][4] In Nisha Pradeep Pandya v. Union of India, the Bombay High Court correctly affirmed that executive authorities may perform quasi-judicial functions when robust safeguards for fairness, transparency, and accountability are preserved.[1][5]

However, procedural adjustments alone cannot resolve every systemic limitation.[1] Future legislative and administrative reforms must strengthen foundational institutions—including Child Welfare Committees, Specialised Adoption Agencies, CARA, and District Magistrate offices—through capacity building and dedicated resources.[1] As demonstrated in Supriyo, adoption law must continually balance administrative efficiency with constitutional principles of child welfare, equality, and human dignity.[1][6]

References

[1] Author, Reforming Adoption Law in India: A Constitutional Analysis of the Juvenile Justice Amendment Act, 2021 (2026 manuscript text).
[2] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, No. 2 of 2016, § 61 (India).
[3] Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), Adoption Regulations, 2022 (India).
[4] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, No. 23 of 2021 (India).
[5] Nisha Pradeep Pandya v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 142.
[6] Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1348.
[7] Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, No. 78 of 1956 (India).