In a judgment that could influence future adoption procedures across India, the Madras High Court has directed the Puducherry Registrar of Births and Deaths to issue a birth certificate naming an adopted child’s new parents, ruling that the adoption made under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAM Act) need not be validated again under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
Justice M. Dhandapani delivered the order on 25 October 2025, allowing a petition filed by A. Kannan, who sought recognition of his adopted daughter K.S. Saatvika with his and his wife's names on the birth certificate.
Background
Kannan and his wife Sheela, married since 2006, had adopted a baby girl from a young mother named Vijayalakshmi, following all Hindu rites, including the traditional Datta Homam ceremony. A registered adoption deed dated 7 September 2022 and a civil court decree from the Principal District Munsif, Puducherry, already confirmed the adoption.
However, when Kannan applied to update the child's birth certificate, the Sub-Registrar rejected it, insisting that only a District Magistrate could issue adoption orders as per the Juvenile Justice Act and Adoption Regulations, 2022. Aggrieved, Kannan approached the High Court seeking a writ to quash the rejection.
Court's Observations
Justice Dhandapani delved deep into both legal frameworks - the HAM Act and the Juvenile Justice Act. The key issue, he noted, was "whether the adoption made under the personal law of Hindus could be governed by the Juvenile Justice mechanism meant for orphans, abandoned, or surrendered children."
The judge pointed out that Section 56(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act expressly excludes adoptions made under the HAM Act.
"Nothing in this Act shall apply to the adoption of children made under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act," the court quoted.
He further observed that the adoption regulations and procedures under the Juvenile Justice Act were "meant to safeguard the interests of children without parental care - not to interfere with lawful adoptions made under personal law."
On the argument that the biological mother was a minor when she conceived, thereby attracting the POCSO Act, the court remarked that such allegations "may have consequences for the offender but cannot affect the status of the child or the legality of adoption performed as per Hindu law."
The court also dismissed the respondent’s claim that the adoption deed was invalid since it was executed by the grandparents. The judgment noted that the biological mother had actively consented and even testified in support of the adoption during civil proceedings.
"The mere execution by grandparents, when done with the concurrence of the mother, cannot invalidate the adoption," the bench observed.
Decision
Finding the Registrar's action to be "an administrative overreach," the High Court quashed the rejection order and directed the Puducherry Registrar to issue a new birth certificate within four weeks, listing the child’s name as K.S. Saatvika and recording A. Kannan and K. Sheela as her adoptive parents.
Justice Dhandapani cautioned that both the HAM Act and the Juvenile Justice Act are benevolent legislations meant to protect children’s welfare, not to obstruct it through bureaucratic confusion.
"Authorities must ensure the process of adoption remains smooth and in the best interest of the child," the court concluded.
The petition was accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
Case Title:- A. Kannan v. Union Territory of Puducherry & Others