Adoption Under JJ Act — Procedure, CARA, Inter-Country Adoption (Sections 56–73)

Adoption is the one chapter of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 that touches the law of family, succession, religion and international comity all at once. Chapter VIII (Sections 56 to 73) does something no personal law had managed: it created a uniform, faith-neutral mechanism by which any Indian, Hindu or Muslim or Christian or Parsi, may take an orphan, abandoned or surrendered child into the legal status of a born child. It also folded the Supreme Court's decades-old inter-country adoption jurisprudence into statutory form and gave the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) a firm legislative footing. This chapter explains the architecture — who may adopt, through which agencies, by what procedure, and what the 2021 amendment changed when it moved the final order from the civil court to the District Magistrate.

The Scheme and Object of Chapter VIII

Chapter VIII opens with Section 56, which declares that adoption "shall be resorted to for ensuring right to family for the orphan, abandoned and surrendered children" in accordance with the Act, the rules and the adoption regulations framed by the Authority. The framing is significant: the Act does not treat adoption as a transaction between adults but as a child's entitlement to a family. The same section preserves two parallel tracks. Section 56(2) permits adoption of a child from a relative by another relative, irrespective of religion; Section 56(3) expressly provides that nothing in the Act shall apply to adoptions made under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, leaving the older Hindu statutory route untouched. Crucially, Section 56(4) and (5) mandate that all inter-country adoptions be carried out only as per the JJ Act and the adoption regulations, and forbid offering or giving a child for adoption at any place "in a manner which is contrary to" the Act.

The animating philosophy of the chapter is best understood against the general principles of care and protection in Section 3 — the principle of best interest, the principle of family responsibility and the principle of institutionalisation as a measure of last resort. Adoption is the statutory expression of the last of these: a permanent family is preferred over a children's home. For the foundational object and constitutional placement of the Act, see the introduction, object and constitutional basis.

A Secular Enabling Law: Shabnam Hashmi

The constitutional character of statutory adoption was settled in Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 1 (also reported as AIR 2014 SC 1281). The petitioner, a Muslim social activist who had herself adopted a child, asked the Supreme Court to declare a fundamental right to adopt and to be adopted, and to direct that the JJ regime override personal laws that do not recognise adoption. A three-Judge Bench did two things, and it is important for exam purposes to keep them apart.

First, the Court declined to declare a fundamental right to adopt or be adopted under Article 21, holding that the conflicting thought processes in society on the subject had not yet matured and that it would be premature to lift the right to that constitutional plane. Second — and this is the operative holding — the Court ruled that the JJ Act is a small step towards the goal enshrined in Article 44 (uniform civil code) and is an enabling, secular legislation. Any person, irrespective of religion, may adopt under the Act by following the prescribed procedure; personal law that does not recognise adoption (such as Muslim law) does not bar a person governed by it from adopting under the secular statute. The optional, enabling nature of the law meant there was no compulsion on anyone, so the objection grounded in personal law fell away. Shabnam Hashmi is therefore the doctrinal foundation on which the entire CARA-driven machinery of Chapter VIII rests.

Who Can Be Adopted: “Legally Free for Adoption”

Only a child declared "legally free for adoption" by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) may be placed for adoption through the CARA system. This connects Chapter VIII to the definitions in Section 2: an orphan is a child without parents or legal guardian or whose guardians are unwilling or unable to take care; an abandoned child is one deserted and declared abandoned by the CWC after due inquiry; and a surrendered child is one relinquished by parents or guardian to the CWC on account of physical, emotional and social factors beyond their control. A surrender requires a two-month reconsideration period during which the biological parent may reclaim the child; only after that window closes can the child be declared legally free.

The legally-free declaration is the jurisdictional gateway. A child not so declared cannot be the subject of a valid adoption order, and an "adoption" effected by a private deed outside this machinery confers no legal parentage. The Madras High Court underscored exactly this in K. Heerajohn v. District Registrar, W.P.(MD) No. 27615 of 2025 (decided 17 October 2025), holding that a registered adoption deed executed by a Muslim couple, outside the JJ procedure, could not by itself confer the legal status of a son; the Act — read with Section 1(4) and Section 63 — prevails over personal law and supplies the only route to full legal parentage.

Eligibility of Prospective Adoptive Parents (Section 57)

Section 57 sets the statutory floor for who may adopt. The prospective adoptive parents (PAPs) must be physically fit, financially sound, mentally alert and highly motivated to adopt a child for providing a good upbringing. Where the PAPs are a couple, Section 57(2) requires the consent of both spouses. A single or divorced person may adopt, subject to the criteria and the adoption regulations. Section 57(4) imposes one categorical bar: a single male is not eligible to adopt a girl child. The balance of the eligibility detail — marital stability of at least two years for couples, minimum and maximum age limits, and the composite-age rule for couples — is supplied by the Adoption Regulations, 2022, which the section expressly authorises.

The Regulations operationalise the section: a minimum age difference of twenty-five years between child and the (single) PAP for the youngest age band, a sliding scale of maximum composite age (up to 90 years for a couple seeking the youngest children, tapering for older children), and limits on adopting where the family already has children, save in defined categories. The statutory-plus-regulatory design lets the eligibility norms be revised administratively without reopening the Act — a deliberate feature given how often CARA recalibrates these bands.

CARA: The Central Adoption Resource Authority (Sections 68–73)

CARA is the nerve centre of the entire chapter. Sections 67 to 73 give it statutory life: Section 68 designates CARA as the Central Authority and lists its functions — to promote in-country adoption, to regulate inter-country adoptions, to frame regulations, to maintain a centralised data system and to act as the nodal body. Section 67 provides for the State Adoption Resource Agency (SARA) in each State to support and monitor adoption at the State level, and Sections 69 to 73 deal with the Steering Committee, the Authority's powers, its annual report, grants by the Central Government and audited accounts.

CARA's pedigree predates the Act. It was conceived by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 244 (AIR 1984 SC 469), discussed below, and existed administratively for three decades before Section 68 placed it on a firm legislative footing. Its operational arm today is CARINGS (the Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System), the online portal through which PAPs register, are matched with referrals and track their case. The shift from a paper-based, agency-driven model to a centralised digital queue — "first registered, first served" subject to seniority and child availability — is the practical reality candidates should appreciate behind the bare sections.

Specialised Adoption Agencies and Children’s Homes (Sections 65–66)

Section 65 requires every State Government to recognise one or more institutions or organisations in each district as a Specialised Adoption Agency (SAA) for the rehabilitation of orphan, abandoned and surrendered children through both in-country and inter-country adoption. The SAA is the institution that physically houses the child, prepares the child study and medical reports, conducts the home study of PAPs and files the adoption application. Section 66 deals with children residing in institutions not registered as SAAs: such children must be reported and brought within the adoption stream, so that no adoptable child is left outside the system.

The chronic under-creation of SAAs has been a recurring grievance before the courts. In The Temple of Healing v. Union of India, the Supreme Court (orders dated 20 November 2023 and through 2024) repeatedly directed States and Union Territories to set up Specialised Adoption Agencies in every district, to run bi-monthly identification drives to locate orphan, abandoned and surrendered children in childcare institutions and to feed them into CARINGS, and to furnish comprehensive data on pending legally-free-for-adoption determinations. The judicial diagnosis was blunt: the gap between thousands of waiting PAPs and the small pool of adoptable children was an administrative failure to identify and declare children, not a shortage of willing parents.

Domestic Adoption Procedure (Section 58)

Section 58 lays down the procedure for adoption by Indian PAPs living in India, irrespective of religion. The steps track the section closely. Under Section 58(1), the PAPs apply to a Specialised Adoption Agency in the manner provided by the regulations. Under Section 58(2), the SAA prepares the home study report and, on finding the PAPs eligible, refers a child declared legally free for adoption along with the child's study report and medical report. Under Section 58(3), on receiving the PAPs' acceptance of the child (the signed child study and medical reports), the SAA places the child in pre-adoption foster care and files an application before the competent authority for the adoption order. Section 58(4) requires the SAA, on receipt of the certified order, to forward it immediately to the PAPs, and Section 58(5) mandates follow-up of the child's progress and well-being in the adoptive family.

The matching and acceptance stage is governed in practice by the Adoption Committee within the SAA and, increasingly, by automated referral on CARINGS, where a PAP is shown up to a limited number of child profiles and must accept or reserve within a fixed window. The home study report is the linchpin: it is the social-worker assessment of the PAPs' suitability that the deciding authority relies on. Note how the procedure differs in temperament from the adversarial process before the Juvenile Justice Board for children in conflict with law — adoption is non-adversarial, child-welfare-driven and confidential.

The 2021 Amendment: From Court to District Magistrate (Section 61)

The single most important procedural change in this chapter came through the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021, which came into force on 1 September 2022. Before the amendment, the adoption order under Section 61 was passed by the court (the District Court or a court of competent jurisdiction). Adoption proceedings were languishing for one to three years in many States despite being non-adversarial. The amendment substituted the District Magistrate (including the Additional District Magistrate) for the court as the authority that issues the adoption order, with the avowed object of speedy, time-bound disposal.

Section 61, as it now reads, requires the District Magistrate before issuing the order to satisfy himself that (a) the adoption is for the welfare of the child; (b) due consideration is given to the wishes of the child having regard to the child's age and understanding; and (c) no payment or reward, other than as permitted under the adoption regulations towards adoption fees, charges or service charges, has been received. Section 61(2) requires the proceedings to be held in camera and the case to be disposed of by the District Magistrate within a period of two months from the date of filing. An appeal against the District Magistrate's order lies to the Divisional Commissioner within thirty days. The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of this transfer of the adjudicatory function from courts to District Magistrates, finding it a permissible legislative choice consistent with the welfare object of the Act.

Inter-Country Adoption: The Laxmi Kant Pandey Foundation

The inter-country provisions of Chapter VIII codify a jurisprudence the Supreme Court built long before 2015. In Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 244 (AIR 1984 SC 469), an advocate filed a public-interest writ alleging malpractice by agencies arranging the adoption of Indian children by foreigners — trafficking, neglect and exploitation. The Court, in a series of orders beginning in 1984, laid down a comprehensive code of safeguards: foreign PAPs had to be sponsored by a licensed social or child-welfare agency in their own country; biological-parent consent and relinquishment had to be properly obtained; the welfare of the child was paramount; and — most consequentially — the Court directed the establishment of a central clearing-house to regulate and channel inter-country adoptions. That body became CARA.

The principle that runs through Laxmi Kant Pandey, and which the JJ Act now codifies, is the preference for in-country adoption: a child should be placed within India wherever possible, and inter-country adoption is a subsidiary route resorted to only when domestic placement is not feasible. This subsidiarity principle is also the bedrock of the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption, 1993, to which India is a party and which the JJ regime is designed to honour.

Inter-Country Adoption Procedure (Sections 59–60)

Section 59 governs the procedure for inter-country adoption of an orphan, abandoned or surrendered child. A child becomes available for inter-country adoption only after it has been established that the child could not be placed with an Indian or non-resident Indian family within the prescribed period — the statutory expression of the in-country-first rule. The matching is done through the Authorised Foreign Adoption Agency or Central Authority of the receiving country, the SAA files the application before the competent authority, and CARA issues a No Objection Certificate (NOC). Section 59 further casts a continuing duty on the foreign agency and the receiving Central Authority to submit progress reports on the child in the adoptive family and to make alternative arrangements if the placement is disrupted.

Section 60 deals with inter-country relative adoption — where a non-resident Indian, overseas citizen or foreign relative adopts a child of a relative in India. The procedure requires the PAPs to apply to CARA, obtain its NOC and then an adoption order, with the receiving country's Central Authority involved to ensure the child's lawful entry and citizenship abroad. The Supreme Court in Stephanie Joan Becker v. State, (2013) 12 SCC 786 (AIR 2013 SC 3495), showed how welfare can soften a rigid age guideline: a single American woman aged 53, beyond the maximum age for single foreign PAPs, was nonetheless permitted to adopt a seven-year-old girl after CARA had granted a relaxation, the Court holding that the proposed adoption was demonstrably in the child's welfare and that the relaxation, once granted on the child's age and circumstances, ought to have been given effect.

Effect and Reporting of Adoption (Sections 63–64)

Section 63 states the legal consequence of a valid adoption: a child adopted under the Act becomes the child of the adoptive parents for all purposes, with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities attached to a biological child, from the date the adoption takes effect; and the child stands severed from the birth family, save for any impediments to marriage that survive. This is full, transplant-style adoption — the child acquires intestate succession rights against the adoptive parents and loses them against the birth family. Section 64 requires the registration and reporting of every adoption order to the Authority so that a central record (on CARINGS) is maintained.

The reach of Section 63 across personal-law boundaries is what the Madras High Court enforced in K. Heerajohn: because the JJ Act is secular and overriding, once an adoption is validly completed under the Act the adopted child enjoys exactly the same legal status as a biological child, even where the parties are governed by a personal law (Muslim law) that does not itself recognise adoption. The case is a useful modern illustration of Shabnam Hashmi in operation a decade later, and of why the statutory route — not a private deed — is indispensable for conferring legal parentage.

Relationship with HAMA and Personal Law

A perennial exam favourite is the interface between the JJ Act and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). The two operate in parallel. Section 56(3) preserves HAMA: a Hindu may still adopt under HAMA, in which case the JJ machinery does not apply and no CARA process is needed. The JJ route is open to Hindus as well, but it is the only statutory route available to those whose personal law does not provide for adoption — Muslims, Christians and Parsis. Before the JJ regime, members of these communities could at most obtain guardianship under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which does not create a parent-child relationship or succession rights. The JJ Act closed that gap.

The doctrinal hierarchy is therefore: (i) HAMA, a complete code for Hindus, untouched by the JJ Act; (ii) the JJ Act, a secular code available to all and mandatory for non-Hindus and for every inter-country adoption; and (iii) personal laws that do not recognise adoption, which cannot prevent a person from adopting under the secular statute (Shabnam Hashmi) and which yield to the JJ Act on the legal status of the adopted child (K. Heerajohn). One caveat candidates should flag: receiving countries do not always treat a HAMA adoption of an NRI/OCI as Hague-compliant, a friction point the Supreme Court noted in The Temple of Healing.

Judicial and Administrative Supervision of the System

The adoption system is supervised on two axes. Administratively, CARA and the State agencies (SARA, SAAs and District Child Protection Units) run the day-to-day machinery under Sections 65 to 73, with CARINGS providing transparency and a verifiable queue. Judicially, the constitutional courts have repeatedly intervened to keep the system honest and moving. Laxmi Kant Pandey built the safeguards; Shabnam Hashmi settled the secular character; Stephanie Joan Becker insisted that welfare, not mechanical guidelines, governs hard cases; and The Temple of Healing turned the spotlight on systemic delay, compelling States to identify adoptable children and create agencies.

For the candidate, the takeaway is that adoption sits at the welfare end of the JJ Act, structurally distinct from its penal end. The Board-centred, due-process machinery for a child in conflict with law — covered in the procedure for children in conflict with law and in the controversial treatment of heinous offences and children aged 16 to 18 — is adversarial and rights-protective of the accused child. Adoption, by contrast, is non-adversarial, confidential and oriented wholly to the best interest of a child who needs a family. Both flow from the same statute and the same Juvenile Justice Act hub, but they answer entirely different questions.