Substitution of 'Court' with 'District Magistrate' for passing adoption orders is constitutionally valid and non-arbitrary.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the transfer of the power to pass adoption orders from a judicial ‘Court’ to an executive ‘District Magistrate’ is unconstitutional or violates the doctrine of separation of powers.

The court held

The District Magistrate is a competent authority to authorize adoptions and that the shift from a court-based system to an executive-led system for adoption is a valid exercise of legislative policy intended to remove delays

It also directed

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of the 2021 Amendments. The interim stay dated 10/01/2023 was vacated, and pending matters were directed to be transferred to the respective District Magistrates. However, the court clarified that all adoption orders passed by Courts in the interregnum remain legally valid

01Facts

Two sets of petitioners challenged the 2021 Amendment to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the 2022 Amendment Rules. The primary grievance was the substitution of the word ‘Court’ with ‘District Magistrate’ (DM) regarding the authority to pass adoption orders

pp. 1-2

The petitioners argued that adoption is a judicial function that cannot be delegated to the executive

p. 4

Procedurally, a Division Bench had previously stayed the transfer of pending adoption matters to DMs on 10/01/2023

p. 3

The Union of India justified the amendment as a policy measure to reduce delays and strengthen district-level child protection

pp. 14-15

02Issues

i.1. Whether the transfer of the power to pass adoption orders from a judicial ‘Court’ to an executive ‘District Magistrate’ is unconstitutional or violates the doctrine of separation of powers.

p. 2 / p. 12

ii.2. Whether the District Magistrate is a competent authority to perform quasi-judicial functions related to the welfare and rehabilitation of children.

p. 16 / p. 24

03Law Applied

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021, and the Adoption Regulations, 2022

p. 10, 27

Article 50 of the Constitution regarding the separation of powers but noted it is not an absolute barrier to executive agencies performing quasi-judicial functions

p. 12, 32

parens patriae jurisdiction and the "best interest of the child" principle established in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984)

p. 5

Legislative competence of Parliament to define the forum for non-adversarial adoption proceedings

pp. 20-21

Provisions in the judgment · 24 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 15 provisions

Section 2 Section 16 Section 26 Section 27 Section 54 Section 55 Section 56 Section 58 Section 59 Section 60 Section 61 Section 63 Section 64 Section 68 Section 101

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Section 5 Section 15

Maharashtra Stamp Act Section 31

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 107 Section 108 Section 109 Section 110 Section 144

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 163

04Reasoning

The court reasoned that adoption proceedings are essentially non-adversarial and procedural in nature, aimed at the rehabilitation of children rather than the adjudication of private rights

p. 15, 20

It observed that District Magistrates already perform various quasi-judicial functions under the Cr.P.C., the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, and the National Security Act

pp. 25-26

The court noted that the DM, as the "Child Protection Head" of a district, is best positioned to coordinate between various agencies like the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and Specialized Adoption Agencies (SAA)

p. 15, 31

Regarding the concern of "judicial trappings," the court found that the Adoption Regulations, 2022, provide a robust, time-bound framework (CARINGS portal) that ensures transparency and follow-up, which the DM is duty-bound to follow

pp. 27-30

The court concluded that changing the forum to expedite the process does not violate the basic structure or manifest arbitrariness

p. 32