The Bombay High Court has affirmed the judicial authority to facilitate the legal adoption of an abandoned child under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, including the power to direct a change of name and issuance of a new birth certificate. This order reinforces the primacy of the child’s best interest in adoption proceedings and clarifies the scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction in such matters.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Bal Asha Trust, a recognized Specialized Adoption Agency under the Department of Women and Child Development, Government of Maharashtra, filed an Indian Adoption Petition seeking the legal adoption of a male minor, Dilprit Tejbeer Singh, born on 14.12.2017. The minor was found abandoned near Mumbai Central Railway Station on 15.10.2024 and placed in the custody of the petitioner institution pursuant to an order of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Mankhurd.
Key Facts
- The minor was declared 'Legally Free for Adoption' by the CWC on 15.10.2024 after due process under the Juvenile Justice Act
- The prospective adoptive parents (PAPs) are Mr. Vitthal Motiram Phuse (54) and Mrs. Nirmala Vitthal Phuse (50), Indian nationals married for 29 years with no biological children
- The PAPs reside at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra
- The Prospective Adoptive Father is a proprietor of a provision store with an annual income of Rs. 2,48,000 (AY 2025-26) and additional rental income of Rs. 8,500 per month
- The PAPs submitted proof of residence, marriage certificate, medical reports (HIV negative), and a Home Study Report by Bharatiya Samaj Seva Kendra, Aurangabad
- A Child Security Undertaking was executed by the Prospective Adoptive Mother’s niece and her husband, guaranteeing care for the child in case of the PAPs’ untimely demise
- The minor’s medical report dated 20.08.2025 confirmed normal physical and mental development, with good communication and school interaction
- The minor’s HIV report dated 08.11.2024 was negative
- The PAPs seek to rename the minor as "Shiva Vitthal Phuse"
- The petitioner’s recognition by the Department of Women and Child Development is valid until 30.03.2026
Procedural History
- 15.10.2024: Minor found abandoned; placed in custody of Bal Asha Trust by CWC order
- 15.10.2024: CWC declares minor 'Legally Free for Adoption'
- 05.12.2025: Medical examination of PAPs completed
- 20.08.2025: Medical examination of minor completed
- 08.11.2024: HIV test of minor conducted
- 21.04.2026: Scrutiny Report submitted by Mr. O. Hareendran, ICSW
- 29.04.2026: Hearing before Bombay High Court; petition disposed of
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Legal declaration of the PAPs as the minor’s parents with full parental rights
- Permission for the PAPs to remove the minor from the jurisdiction of the Court
- Direction to the Municipal Authority to issue a birth certificate in the name of "Shiva Vitthal Phuse" with the PAPs as parents
- Permission to change the minor’s name from Dilprit Tejbeer Singh to Shiva Vitthal Phuse
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court, under its inherent and original civil jurisdiction, has the authority to direct the issuance of a new birth certificate and approve a name change for a minor adopted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, after the child has been declared legally free for adoption.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, particularly Sections 61 and 62, which empower courts to finalize adoption and grant parental rights. It submitted that the PAPs had fulfilled all procedural requirements under the Adoption Regulations, 2022, including the Home Study Report, medical clearances, and financial stability. The petitioner argued that the name change and birth certificate issuance are integral to the child’s social integration and legal identity, and that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution permits such directions to give effect to the child’s best interest.
For the Respondent
The Scrutiny Officer from the Indian Council of Social Welfare (ICSW) submitted a report dated 21.04.2026, which was taken on record. The report did not raise any objection to the adoption or the proposed name change. No adverse representation was made by the State or any statutory authority.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the procedural compliance of the adoption process and found that all statutory requirements under the Juvenile Justice Act and the Adoption Regulations, 2022, had been fully satisfied. The Home Study Report, medical clearances, financial disclosures, and the Child Security Undertaking were deemed adequate and credible.
The Court further relied on the interim order passed by the Division Bench in Nisha Pradeep Pandya v. Union of India (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 90), which affirmed that adoption matters pending before the High Court may continue to be adjudicated by it, even while challenges to the 2021 Amendment are pending. This precedent established that the High Court retains jurisdiction over adoption petitions filed before it.
"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... those orders may be continued to be passed until the challenge is finally decided."
The Court held that the child’s best interest is paramount and that the proposed name change and birth certificate issuance are not mere formalities but essential steps to ensure the child’s legal identity, social acceptance, and access to education and public services. The Court emphasized that the PAPs’ consent to the name change and their commitment to the child’s welfare were unequivocal and documented.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court declared the prospective adoptive parents as the legal parents of the minor with full parental rights. The Court directed the Municipal Authority to issue a birth certificate in the name of "Shiva Vitthal Phuse", born on 14.12.2017, with the PAPs listed as parents. The name change from Dilprit Tejbeer Singh to Shiva Vitthal Phuse was approved. The PAPs were granted permission to remove the minor from the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court further directed the petitioner to obtain and file a fresh undertaking from the PAPs that they shall not seek further adoption of the minor without prior court permission. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Name Change and Birth Certificate Are Integral to Adoption
- Practitioners must now treat name change and birth certificate issuance as mandatory components of adoption petitions, not optional requests
- Courts will routinely direct municipal authorities to issue birth certificates reflecting adoptive parents as legal parents, even if the child was born in a different state
- Failure to seek these directions may result in future administrative barriers for the child’s education, passport, or inheritance rights
Jurisdictional Clarity for High Courts
- High Courts retain jurisdiction over adoption petitions filed before them, even amid legislative challenges to the JJ Act amendments
- The Nisha Pradeep Pandya precedent now serves as binding authority for courts to continue adjudicating pending adoption matters
- Petitioners should cite this judgment to resist attempts by authorities to transfer adoption cases to District Magistrates
Documentation Must Be Comprehensive
- Home Study Reports must include not only emotional stability but also contingency plans (e.g., Child Security Undertaking)
- Medical reports for both PAPs and the child must be current and explicitly state HIV status
- Financial documents should reflect both primary and ancillary income sources
- All affidavits and undertakings must be notarized and filed with the petition
