Facts
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
Source reference: p. 1-2The petitioners argued that adoption is a judicial function that cannot be delegated to the executive
Source reference: p. 4Procedurally, a Division Bench had previously stayed the transfer of pending adoption matters to DMs on 10/01/2023
Source reference: p. 3The Union of India justified the amendment as a policy measure to reduce delays and strengthen district-level child protection
Source reference: p. 14-15Issues
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.
Source reference: p. 2 / p. 122. Whether the District Magistrate is a competent authority to perform quasi-judicial functions related to the welfare and rehabilitation of children.
Source reference: p. 16 / p. 24Law Applied
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021, and the Adoption Regulations, 2022
Source reference: p. 10, 27Article 50 of the Constitution regarding the separation of powers but noted it is not an absolute barrier to executive agencies performing quasi-judicial functions
Source reference: p. 12, 32parens patriae jurisdiction and the "best interest of the child" principle established in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984)
Source reference: p. 5Legislative competence of Parliament to define the forum for non-adversarial adoption proceedings
Source reference: p. 20-21Reasoning
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
Source reference: p. 15, 20It 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
Source reference: p. 25-26The 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)
Source reference: p. 15, 31Regarding 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
Source reference: p. 27-30The court concluded that changing the forum to expedite the process does not violate the basic structure or manifest arbitrariness
Source reference: p. 32Holding
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
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
Source reference: p. 33Original Court PDF
Nisha Pradeep Pandya Alias Nisha Amit Gor And AnrvsUnion Of India And 2 Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in