Landmark Cases on Adoption in India
1. Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 1
Facts:
Shabnam Hashmi, a social activist, approached the Supreme Court seeking recognition of adoption as a legal right, even for individuals governed by Muslim personal law, which traditionally does not recognize adoption in the formal legal sense.
Issue:
Can a person from a religion that does not recognize adoption under personal law still adopt a child under secular law?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the right to adopt a child is a legal right, not merely a religious or personal matter. The Court ruled that even if personal laws do not recognize adoption, any individual in India can adopt under the secular law that exists in the country.
Significance:
Established the supremacy of secular law over personal law in the context of adoption.
Recognized adoption as a part of the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Allowed Muslims, Christians, and Parsis to adopt children legally, overriding traditional constraints from personal law.
2. Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 244
Facts:
This case involved a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) by a lawyer, L.K. Pandey, expressing concern about malpractices in inter-country adoptions, especially regarding the exploitation of children by foreign adoptive parents.
Issue:
What safeguards should exist in inter-country adoptions to prevent trafficking and exploitation of children?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for:
Screening foreign adoptive parents.
Ensuring that the child is legally free for adoption.
Prioritizing in-country adoption over inter-country adoption.
Assigning responsibilities to recognized adoption agencies and government bodies.
Significance:
Considered the best interests of the child as paramount.
Set the foundation for ethical and regulated adoption procedures, especially involving foreigners.
Marked the beginning of judicial oversight in inter-country adoptions.
3. Malti Roy Choudhury v. Sudhindranath Majumdar (AIR 1967 Cal 318)
Facts:
A dispute arose over the validity of an adoption made by a Hindu widow without the consent of her husband’s family.
Issue:
Can a widow validly adopt without the consent of her deceased husband’s relatives?
Judgment:
The Calcutta High Court upheld the adoption, stating that once the legal requirements for adoption are met, no further consent is needed from extended family members. The adoption must be evaluated based on the intent and the performance of necessary rituals.
Significance:
Clarified that the adoptive mother's intent and action are critical, and not mere family consensus.
Focused on formalities and ritual performance rather than social approval.
4. In re Manuel Theodore D’Souza (2000 Bom CR (Cri) 494)
Facts:
This case involved a Christian couple seeking to adopt under the guardianship laws due to lack of a codified adoption law applicable to Christians.
Issue:
Can non-Hindus legally adopt under the general guardianship provisions?
Judgment:
The Bombay High Court held that non-Hindus may only be granted guardianship, not adoption in the traditional sense, since no specific legal provision existed for formal adoption in their personal law at that time. Adoption under guardianship laws does not give the child the status of a biological child.
Significance:
Highlighted the legal vacuum for adoption among certain communities.
Emphasized that guardianship is not equivalent to adoption in terms of rights, inheritance, and identity.
Led to further discussion and reforms for secular adoption frameworks in India.
5. Philips Alfred Malvin v. Y.J. Gonsalvis (AIR 1999 Bom 399)
Facts:
A Christian man sought to adopt a child and treat him as a natural son for inheritance and other legal purposes.
Issue:
Can Christians adopt legally under Indian law and confer full legal status on the adopted child?
Judgment:
The Bombay High Court held that there is no legal adoption among Christians under personal law, and that unless adoption is done under a valid secular law, the child only becomes a ward, not a legal heir.
Significance:
Reinforced the idea that personal law may not allow adoption, making secular adoption laws necessary.
Set precedent for Christian individuals to approach secular mechanisms for legal adoption.
Summary of Key Judicial Principles:
| Principle | Case Law |
|---|---|
| Adoption is a legal right, even if personal law prohibits it | Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India |
| Best interests of the child are paramount in adoption | Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India |
| Widow’s authority to adopt without extended family consent | Malti Roy Choudhury v. Sudhindranath Majumdar |
| Guardianship ≠ Adoption (for non-Hindus) | In re Manuel Theodore D’Souza, Philips Alfred Malvin v. Y.J. Gonsalvis |
RELATED Blog
0 comments