Adoption is more than a legal formality—it is the legal recognition of a lifelong relationship between a child and their adoptive parents. The process transforms both the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved, creating a new family structure. However, adoption disputes often raise a pivotal question: What should be the paramount consideration—procedural compliance with adoption laws or the “best interest of the child”?
The Supreme Court of India’s decision in Dasari Anil Kumar & Anr. v. The Child Welfare Project Director & Ors. (Civil Appeals arising from SLP (C) Nos. 6322, decided on 12 August 2025) addresses this very issue. The Court, while invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, reaffirmed that the best interest of the child is a primary guiding principle in resolving adoption disputes, especially when emotional bonding and stability are at stake.
Factual Background
The case arose from multiple writ petitions filed by individuals claiming to be adoptive parents of minor children. The adoptions in question were conducted outside the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) system and allegedly without strict adherence to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”).
Key Facts
- In each case, the adoptive parents claimed to have lawfully adopted infants—some only a few days old—directly from their biological parents, primarily under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (“HAMA”).
- On 22 May 2024, the police took custody of these children and handed them over to the Child Welfare Project Director, citing an FIR and alleging violations of adoption procedures.
- The Single Judge of the Telangana High Court held that the JJ Act did not apply to these circumstances and directed that custody remain with the adoptive parents.
- The Division Bench reversed this decision, retaining the children in institutional care and directing further inquiry under Sections 36–38 of the JJ Act.
- Aggrieved, the adoptive parents approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
1. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA)
HAMA governs adoptions among Hindus, allowing for a direct transfer of parental rights provided statutory conditions are met. It does not require CARA involvement for intra-Hindu adoptions.
2. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
The JJ Act is broader in scope, establishing procedures for adoption, especially where the child is an orphan, abandoned, or surrendered. Section 3 lays down general principles, including:
- Principle of Best Interest [Section 3(iv)]: All decisions must prioritise the child’s welfare and development.
- Principle of Family Responsibility [Section 3(v)]
- Principle of Safety [Section 3(vi)]
- Institutionalisation as a Last Resort [Section 3(xii)]
- Principle of Repatriation and Restoration [Section 3(xiii)]
3. Article 142 of the Constitution
Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
A. Emotional Bonding and Welfare
The Court, speaking through Justice B.V. Nagarathna (with Justice K.V. Viswanathan concurring), held that in the peculiar facts of the case, “ends of justice would be served… by directing return of the… children to the adoptive parents,” emphasising that this direction was in line with the best interest of the child principle.
B. Reliance on Section 3 of the JJ Act
The Court quoted extensively from Section 3, reiterating that:
- The best interest is the primary consideration.
- The family, whether biological or adoptive, bears the primary responsibility for a child’s care.
- Institutionalisation should be a measure of last resort.
C. Safeguards and Monitoring
Recognising possible procedural irregularities in adoption, the Court did not leave the matter unchecked. It directed:
- Quarterly welfare reports by State or District Legal Services Authorities.
- Liberty to child welfare experts to inspect the homes.
- Submission of reports to the Child Welfare Committee.
D. Use of Article 142
The Court expressly invoked Article 142 to override procedural lapses, noting that its order was not to be construed as a precedent for bypassing statutory adoption requirements but as a measure to “do complete justice” in a case involving established emotional bonds.
The ‘Best Interest’ Standard in Indian Jurisprudence
The best interest of the child principle has been embedded in Indian law through multiple sources:
- Statutory Recognition: JJ Act, Guardians and Wards Act, HAMA.
- Constitutional Backing: Articles 14, 15(3), 21, and 39(f) mandate the State to protect children’s rights.
Judicial Precedent:
- Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984) — Laid down safeguards for inter-country adoption with the child’s welfare as the guiding factor.
- Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) — Stressed that the child’s welfare prevails over legal rights of parents.
- Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India (2014) — Recognised adoption as a fundamental right under Article 21 for childless individuals, subject to the child’s welfare.
Conflict Between Procedure and Welfare
The present case reveals a recurring tension:
- On one hand: Strict compliance with adoption procedures under JJ Act/CARA ensures transparency, prevents trafficking, and protects children’s rights.
- On the other hand: Overemphasis on procedural compliance can lead to prolonged institutionalisation, potentially harming the child’s emotional development.
The Supreme Court here prioritised welfare over procedural rigidity but added safeguards to prevent misuse.
Implications of the Judgment
- Reaffirmation of Welfare Principle: The ruling cements the best interest of the child as a decisive factor even in procedural disputes.
- Checks Against Abuse: By introducing quarterly monitoring and home inspections, the Court balanced welfare concerns with oversight.
- Guidance for Lower Courts: While not a blanket relaxation of adoption laws, the judgment offers guidance for exceptional cases where emotional bonding outweighs procedural lapses.
- Policy Considerations: The case highlights the need for harmonising HAMA and JJ Act to avoid jurisdictional confusion in adoption matters.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan stated:
This is in the interest of the children owing to the bonding between the “adoptive parents” and the respective children. This is by following the principle of the best interest of the child; principle of family responsibility; principle of safety, positive measures, principle of Institutionalization as a measure of last resort, principle of repatriation and restoration, which are also enunciated as general principles in Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
However, as a safeguard and in the best interest of the children, we direct that the Member Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority and/or the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Committee, within whose jurisdiction the “adoptive parents” reside to seek reports on the welfare and progress of the child from the respective “adoptive parents” on a quarterly basis starting from November, 2025 onwards.
The Member Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority and/or the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Committee will also be at liberty to depute a Child Welfare Expert to inspect the home where the child and the “adoptive parents” reside. This is to ensure the welfare and progress of the children who have been returned to the “adoptive parents”.
Criticism and Caution
While the judgment prioritises child welfare, critics may argue:
- Relaxing the procedure may unintentionally encourage informal adoptions without proper vetting.
- It risks undermining CARA’s role and statutory safeguards against child trafficking.
- The Court’s emphasis that this order is case-specific serves as an important cautionary note.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dasari Anil Kumar is a reaffirmation that the “best interest of the child” is not just a guiding light but the ultimate determinant in adoption disputes. While legal formalities safeguard against exploitation, they cannot overshadow the lived reality of a child’s happiness and security.
By restoring custody to the adoptive parents and embedding protective oversight, the Court struck a careful balance—ensuring both compliance with the law and protection of the child’s emotional world.
As the court aptly concluded, the order was passed “not only in the best interest of the children concerned, but also by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to do complete justice in the matter.”
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams