The Bombay High Court has affirmed the continued jurisdiction of Single Judges to adjudicate pending adoption petitions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, even amid a constitutional challenge to the 2021 Amendment. This order provides critical clarity for institutions and prospective adoptive parents navigating the legal pathway to adoption.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Vatsalya Trust, a recognized 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, Aahan, born on 01.10.2024. The minor was surrendered by his biological mother and placed in the custody of the petitioner institution on the same day of birth, pursuant to an order of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Mumbai City - II.
Key Facts
- The minor was declared 'Legally Free for Adoption' by the CWC on 25.03.2025 after due process under the JJ Act
- The prospective adoptive parents (PAPs) are Mr. Jayant Prabhakar Jadhav (45 years, businessman) and Mrs. Aparna Jayant Jadhav (40 years, health assistant)
- The PAPs have been married for 21 years and have no biological children
- The PAPs reside at 110/6, Railway Line, Kumar Chowk, Solapur, Maharashtra
- The prospective adoptive father’s annual income is Rs. 5,04,030; the mother earns Rs. 7,000 monthly and receives Rs. 21,000 as rent
- Medical reports dated 28.04.2025 confirm both PAPs are HIV-negative
- The Home Study Report by Pakhar Sankul Balgruh, Solapur, concluded the PAPs are emotionally stable and suitable for adoption
- A Child Security Undertaking was executed by the PAPs’ sister and brother-in-law, committing to care for the child in case of the PAPs’ untimely demise
- The minor’s medical report dated 21.04.2025 indicates normal physical and mental development; HIV report dated 07.04.2025 is negative
- The PAPs seek to rename the minor as "Samarth Jayant Jadhav"
- The petitioner’s recognition by the Department of Women and Child Development is valid until 31.05.2026
Procedural History
- 01.10.2024: Minor born and surrendered to Vatsalya Trust
- 25.03.2025: CWC declares minor legally free for adoption
- 21.04.2025: Minor’s medical examination completed
- 07.04.2025: HIV test of minor completed
- 28.04.2025: PAPs’ medical examination completed
- 07.04.2026: Scrutiny Officer’s report submitted by Indian Council of Social Welfare
- 29.04.2026: Indian Adoption Petition heard and decided by Bombay High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Declaration of the PAPs as legal adoptive parents with full parental rights
- Permission to change the minor’s name to "Samarth Jayant Jadhav"
- Direction to the Municipal Authority to issue a birth certificate reflecting the PAPs as parents
- Leave for the PAPs to remove the minor from the jurisdiction of the Court
- An undertaking that the child shall not be re-adopted without Court permission
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Bombay High Court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate pending adoption petitions under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, despite a pending constitutional challenge to the 2021 Amendment that sought to transfer such matters to District Magistrates.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the interim order passed by the Division Bench in Nisha Pradeep Pandya v. Union of India (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 90), which directed that pending adoption matters before Single Judges be allowed to continue until the constitutional challenge is finally decided. It emphasized that the minor’s best interests required timely resolution and that the PAPs had fulfilled all statutory and procedural requirements under the JJ Act.
For the Respondent
The Scrutiny Officer from the Indian Council of Social Welfare submitted a report dated 07.04.2026, which was taken on record. No substantive opposition was raised. The Officer’s report did not contest the suitability of the PAPs or the legality of the process.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the interim order in Nisha Pradeep Pandya v. Union of India, which explicitly preserved the jurisdiction of Single Judges to hear pending adoption petitions. The Court noted that the interim directions were issued to prevent disruption in adoption proceedings while the constitutional validity of the 2021 Amendment was under review.
"Additionally, 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. Those orders may be continued to be passed until the challenge is finally decided."
The Court held that the interim order remains in force and binding. It further observed that the PAPs had complied with every requirement under the JJ Act, including the Home Study Report, medical clearances, financial stability, and the Child Security Undertaking. The minor’s health and developmental status were confirmed as normal, and the proposed name change was consistent with the PAPs’ wishes and the child’s best interests.
The Court emphasized that adoption proceedings are governed by the paramount principle of the child’s welfare, and undue delay in finalizing adoption could cause irreparable harm to the minor’s emotional and psychological development.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court declared Mr. Jayant Prabhakar Jadhav and Mrs. Aparna Jayant Jadhav as the legal adoptive parents of the minor, now to be known as Samarth Jayant Jadhav. The Court directed the Municipal Authority to issue a birth certificate reflecting the PAPs as parents, with the minor’s date of birth recorded as 01.10.2024. The PAPs were granted leave to remove the minor from the Court’s jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to obtain and file a further undertaking from the PAPs that they shall not seek further adoption of the child without prior Court permission. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Pending Adoption Petitions Remain Valid Before Single Judges
- Practitioners may continue to file and pursue adoption petitions before Single Judges of High Courts, even if the 2021 Amendment is under challenge
- The interim order in Nisha Pradeep Pandya remains binding until overturned
- Delay in adoption proceedings due to pending constitutional challenges is not permissible under the JJ Act’s welfare principle
Documentation Must Be Exhaustive and Timely
- Home Study Reports must be current and from recognized agencies
- Medical reports (including HIV) for both PAPs and the child must be submitted and countersigned
- Financial documents, marriage certificates, and security undertakings are non-negotiable
- Name change requests must be clearly articulated and supported by the PAPs’ declaration
Best Interest of the Child Overrides Procedural Uncertainty
- Courts will prioritize the child’s developmental and emotional needs over procedural ambiguities
- Adoption petitions involving minors under one year of age are particularly time-sensitive
- Failure to obtain a Child Security Undertaking may result in rejection, even if all other criteria are met
