In a significant judgment concerning jurisdictional boundaries and child adoption, the Bombay High Court clarified that it cannot permit the adoption of a foreign-national child by Indian relatives under its extraordinary powers when the child does not qualify as a “child in need of care and protection” or a “child in conflict with law.” The case stemmed from an Indian couple who sought to adopt their nephew, a four-year-old American citizen, residing with them in India since infancy. Although the child’s biological grandparents were Indian nationals, the court emphasized that nationality and familial ties alone did not bring the child within the scope of Indian adoption laws.
The bench, led by the Chief Justice and another judge, rejected the petitioners’ plea to assert jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It held that the foundational statute governing adoption, the Juvenile Justice Act, and associated regulations do not authorize the adoption of a foreign-national child by Indian relatives unless the child falls within specific categories—namely, being abandoned, orphaned, relinquished, or involved with the law. Since the child did not require care or protection nor contended with legal issues, the court found no legislative basis to entertain their petition.
Further, the court emphasized that Indian citizens do not enjoy an inherent or fundamental constitutional right to adopt a child simply on grounds of biological affinity or familial connection. The right to adopt is circumscribed by statute, not personal discretion. While the petitioners argued that their lawsuit should be permitted under the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction, the court held that such powers cannot be exercised in the absence of a legal framework. It underscored that jurisdiction must derive from statute rather than courtesy or humanitarian grounds and declined to override the legislative intent.
The decision also addressed procedural alternatives. The court noted that if the petitioners wish to proceed, they must first adopt the child under the laws of the country in which he is a citizen—namely, the United States—and then apply for post-adoption recognition and permission to bring the child to India. Only once such formalities are complete would they be eligible under Indian law to seek recognition of the adoption through Indian authorities.
This ruling sends a clear signal that the lines protecting statutory adoption mechanisms remain firm. It asserts that even though the High Court possesses broad constitutional powers, these cannot replace or circumvent express legislative provisions. In doing so, the Bombay High Court preserved the integrity of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Adoption Regulations, while clarifying the limited scope of extraordinary jurisdiction in family and child welfare matters.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.