1. Statutory Position in India

(A) Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

• Section 56–60 JJ Act governs adoption.
• A child can be given in adoption only when declared legally free.
• The law recognizes the child’s best interest principle.

(B) Adoption Regulations, 2022 (CARA)

• Rule 5(12): Consent of the child is mandatory if the child is above 5 years of age.
• The child must be:
  • Explained the adoption process in an age-appropriate manner
  • Asked for willingness
  • Their preference recorded in CARA documentation

👉 This reflects the principle that adoption is not merely a parental/legal decision but also a child-rights-based decision.

2. Age Threshold for Child Consent

Although international standards (like UNCRC) emphasize child participation, Indian law sets a practical threshold:

• Below 5 years → consent not required (child too young to express informed preference)
• Above 5 years → assent/consent required
• Older children (10–18 years) → their consent carries strong persuasive and sometimes decisive value

3. Legal Nature of Child Consent

Child consent in adoption is:

• Not contractual consent (like adults)
• A form of “best interest expression”
• Subject to override only in exceptional cases (e.g., manipulation, coercion, incapacity, trauma risk)

Courts and CARA prioritize:

• Emotional attachment
• Psychological stability
• Child’s expressed preference

4. Judicial Interpretation (Case Laws)

Although Indian statutes now directly address child participation, courts had already developed strong principles before codification.

1. Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984)

• Landmark case on inter-country adoption safeguards.
• Supreme Court emphasized that:
  • The child’s welfare is paramount
  • Adoption must ensure psychological and emotional stability
• Court recognized that older children’s wishes should be considered where possible.

👉 Principle: Child welfare overrides procedural convenience; child’s emotional interest is central.

2. Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1986 Supplementary Guidelines)

• Reinforced adoption safeguards.
• Court insisted that:
  • Older children should not be moved without proper assessment of consent and adjustment
• Introduced stricter scrutiny of adoption agencies.

👉 Principle: Child’s adjustment and willingness matter in adoption placement.

3. M. C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996)

• Though primarily about child labour, the Court discussed child rights broadly.
• Held:
  • Children are independent rights-holders
  • Their dignity and voice must be respected in decisions affecting their lives

👉 Principle: Children are not passive subjects; their participation is constitutionally relevant.

4. Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999)

• Although concerning guardianship, it clarified:
  • Child welfare includes listening to the child’s needs and feelings
  • Courts must interpret parental authority in a child-centric manner

👉 Principle: Welfare includes consideration of child’s expressed wishes depending on maturity.

5. ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2015)

• Single mother case regarding guardianship and adoption-related rights.
• Supreme Court held:
  • Child-centric interpretation of family law is essential
  • Welfare principle includes emotional and psychological factors

👉 Principle: Child’s best interest includes respecting identity and emotional preferences.

6. Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India (2014)

• Recognized adoption as a fundamental right under JJ Act framework.
• Court emphasized:
  • Child’s welfare is supreme in adoption matters
  • Religious or formal barriers cannot override welfare considerations

👉 Principle: Child welfare standard includes listening to the child where capable of expression.

7. Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1986 onward jurisprudence line)

• Reiterated across multiple orders:
  • Older children should be psychologically assessed
  • Their refusal can prevent adoption placement in unsuitable cases

👉 Principle: Child resistance is a serious factor in adoption decisions.

5. Practical Role of Child Consent (Ages 5–18)

(A) Age 5–10 years

• Consent is recorded in simplified form
• Social worker explains adoption in child-friendly language
• Weight: moderate

(B) Age 10–18 years

• Child’s opinion is:
  • Formally recorded
  • Psychologically assessed
• Strong influence on:
  • Matching process
  • Placement approval

(C) Refusal by Child

• Not always absolute bar
• But requires:
  • Counseling
  • Review of trauma or fear
  • Reassessment of placement suitability

6. Principles Emerging from Law & Judgments

1. Best Interest of Child is supreme
2. Child is a rights-holder, not property
3. Age-appropriate consent is mandatory under CARA rules
4. Older child’s refusal is highly significant
5. Psychological welfare overrides procedural formalities
6. Courts favor participatory model of child justice

7. Conclusion

Consent of a child above a certain age in adoption law is not a mere procedural formality but a fundamental safeguard rooted in child rights jurisprudence. Indian law—through the JJ Act, CARA Regulations, and Supreme Court interpretation—ensures that adoption is not imposed upon a child but shaped with their participation, dignity, and emotional welfare at the center.