Bombay HC Upholds 2021 JJ Act Amendment, Says Transfer of Adoption Powers to District Magistrates Constitutionally Valid

In a significant ruling concerning adoption law and child welfare administration, the Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021, which transferred the authority to issue adoption orders from civil courts to District Magistrates. The judgment was delivered on 5 May 2026 by a Division Bench comprising Justice Bharati H. Dangre and Justice Manjusha A. Deshpande in Nisha Pradeep Pandya & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 1085 of 2023 with connected matters). The Court dismissed the constitutional challenge mounted against the amendment and cleared the way for its implementation across the State.

The petitioners had challenged the 2021 amendment on the ground that passing adoption orders is essentially a judicial function that historically lay with competent civil courts, and entrusting such powers to executive authorities like District Magistrates violates the doctrine of separation of powers as well as the guarantees under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. They argued that adoption proceedings directly affect the legal status of a child and prospective parents, requiring judicial scrutiny and procedural safeguards.

The dispute centered around amendments made to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, particularly Section 61, which originally provided that an adoption order would be issued by the “Court.” After the 2021 amendment, the term “Court” was substituted with “District Magistrate, including Additional District Magistrate.” The amendment also empowered District Magistrates to conduct adoption proceedings in-camera and decide such applications within a prescribed timeline.

While upholding the amendment, the High Court observed that adoption proceedings are non-adversarial in nature and primarily concern the welfare of the child rather than adjudication of competing legal claims. The Bench noted that District Magistrates already discharge several quasi-judicial and welfare-related functions under multiple statutes and are institutionally equipped to handle adoption matters. The Court further held that the transfer of forum does not dilute substantive safeguards because the adoption process continues to be regulated by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) and detailed adoption regulations.

Referring to the legislative object behind the amendment, the Court noted that Parliament intended to reduce delays in adoption proceedings and ensure quicker rehabilitation of orphaned, abandoned, and surrendered children. Finding no arbitrariness or constitutional infirmity in the legislative policy, the Court vacated its earlier interim protection and permitted pending adoption matters, including inter-country adoptions, to be transferred to District Magistrates.

The ruling marks an important development in Indian family law by affirming that administrative efficiency in adoption matters can coexist with statutory safeguards, provided the paramount consideration that the best interests of the child remains protected.