The Bombay High Court has affirmed the legal pathway for adoption under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, by granting a petition for adoption of a minor declared legally free for adoption. The judgment underscores the primacy of the child’s best interest and validates the procedural compliance undertaken by the adoption agency and prospective parents.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Bal Asha Trust, Mumbai, sought judicial approval for the adoption of a male minor, Santosh, born on 03.10.2025, by prospective adoptive parents Mr. Chetan Arun Dole and Mrs. Chhaya Chetan Dole. The minor was surrendered to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Mumbai City - II, on 06.10.2025 by his biological parents, following which he was placed in the care of the petitioner institution.
Key Facts
- The minor was declared 'Legally Free for Adoption' by the CWC Mumbai City - II on 12.01.2026 after due process under Section 57 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
- The prospective adoptive parents (PAPs) are Indian nationals, married for 11 years, with no biological children
- The prospective adoptive father is employed as a Group Manager - IT with a gross monthly income of Rs. 1,14,023
- The PAPs submitted proof of residence, marriage certificate, medical reports (HIV negative), and financial stability documents
- A Home Study Report by Bharatiya Samaj Seva Kendra, Pune, concluded the PAPs are emotionally stable and suitable for adoption
- A Child Security Undertaking was executed by the PAPs’ in-laws, guaranteeing care for the child in case of untoward events
- The minor’s medical report dated 10.01.2026 confirmed normal physical and mental development; HIV report dated 16.12.2025 was negative
- The PAPs sought to change the minor’s name from Santosh to Vihaan Chetan Dole
- The petitioner institution’s recognition by the Department of Women and Child Development, Government of Maharashtra, was valid until 30.03.2026
Procedural History
- 03.10.2025: Minor born
- 06.10.2025: Surrendered to CWC Mumbai City - II; placed in care of petitioner
- 12.01.2026: CWC declared minor 'Legally Free for Adoption'
- 24.12.2025: Medical examination of PAPs completed
- 16.12.2025: HIV test of minor conducted
- 10.01.2026: Medical report of minor submitted
- 25.03.2026: Home Study Report submitted by Specialized Adoption Agency
- 10.04.2026: Scrutiny Report by Indian Council of Social Welfare (ICSW) submitted and marked 'X'
- 29.04.2026: Petition heard and decided by Bombay High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Declaration of the PAPs as legal parents with full parental rights
- Permission for the PAPs to remove the child from the jurisdiction of the Court
- Direction to issue a birth certificate in the name of Vihaan Chetan Dole
- Permission to change the minor’s name from Santosh to Vihaan Chetan Dole
- Undertaking that the child shall not be re-adopted without Court permission
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Court may approve the adoption of a minor declared legally free for adoption under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, where the prospective adoptive parents have complied with all procedural requirements, including a positive home study report, medical fitness, and financial stability, and where the child’s best interest is unequivocally served.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner submitted that all statutory requirements under the JJ Act, 2015, and the Adoption Regulations, 2022, had been fully complied with. The CWC’s declaration of the child as legally free for adoption was valid and unchallenged. The Home Study Report by the Specialized Adoption Agency affirmed the suitability of the PAPs. The medical and financial documents were complete and credible. The name change request was consistent with the child’s new identity and the PAPs’ wishes. The petitioner relied on the principle that adoption proceedings are governed by the paramount consideration of the child’s welfare.
For the Respondent
The Scrutiny Officer from the Indian Council of Social Welfare (ICSW) submitted a report dated 10.04.2026, which was taken on record. No objections were raised by the ICSW or any other statutory authority. The Court noted the absence of any adverse findings or procedural irregularities.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the procedural compliance under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Adoption Regulations, 2022. It noted that the child had been declared legally free for adoption by the CWC after due inquiry, and no challenge had been mounted to that order. The Home Study Report, conducted by a recognized Specialized Adoption Agency, was detailed, objective, and concluded that the PAPs were emotionally and financially capable of providing a stable home.
"It is relevant to note here that in the case of Nisha Pradeep Pandya and Anr v. Union of India, which has considered a challenge raised to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021, the Division Bench of this Court on 10th January 2023, has passed an interim order... [and] the safer and more prudent course of action would be to allow all matters to be placed before the learned Single Judge of this Court who is assigned those matters."
The Court held that the interim order in Nisha Pradeep Pandya did not bar the adjudication of adoption petitions before the Single Judge, and that the present petition fell squarely within the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the child’s best interest is the overriding principle under Section 41 of the JJ Act, 2015, and that all evidence pointed to a secure, loving, and stable environment being provided by the PAPs.
The Court also noted the absence of any objection from the ICSW, the validity of the medical reports, and the presence of a legally binding Child Security Undertaking. The request for name change was deemed a natural consequence of adoption and in the child’s interest.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court declared the prospective adoptive parents as the legal parents of the minor, with full parental rights and responsibilities. The PAPs were granted leave to remove the child from the jurisdiction of the Court. The Municipal Authority was directed to issue a birth certificate in the name of Vihaan Chetan Dole, listing the PAPs as parents. The name change from Santosh to Vihaan Chetan Dole was approved. The petitioner was directed to obtain and file an undertaking from the PAPs that they shall not re-adopt the child without prior Court permission. There was no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must ensure all statutory documents under the JJ Act, 2015, are complete: CWC declaration, home study report, medical fitness, financial affidavits, and security undertakings
- Any omission, even minor, may trigger scrutiny from ICSW or delay approval
- Home study reports must be conducted by recognized Specialized Adoption Agencies to be valid
Best Interest of the Child Is the Sole Criterion
- Courts will not require proof of "perfect" circumstances but will assess whether the environment is stable, loving, and secure
- Financial status alone is insufficient; emotional stability and long-term commitment are equally critical
- Name changes and removal from jurisdiction are routinely permitted if aligned with the child’s welfare
Judicial Oversight Remains Central
- Even with full compliance, adoption petitions require judicial sanction under Section 61 of the JJ Act
- The Nisha Pradeep Pandya interim order does not suspend adoption proceedings before Single Judges
- Practitioners should file petitions before the High Court under its ordinary original civil jurisdiction where the child is under its territorial jurisdiction
