Pranav B Prem

In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court ruled that the mere submission of an adoption application does not grant the right to unilaterally take custody of a child or declare the child as an adopted one. This ruling came while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking the return of custody of a one-and-a-half-year-old abandoned child whom she had found and taken care of for over a year. The Court upheld the decision of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to take custody of the child, emphasizing that the child’s best interests and statutory procedures must be prioritized in adoption cases.

Case Background

The petitioner and her husband, who had been childless for 20 years, found a newborn female child abandoned in the toilet of a train while traveling in 2023. Without informing authorities, they took the child into their care, intending to adopt her. Over the next one and a half years, they provided the child with care, medical treatment, and a stable home. However, in 2024, during an inquiry into child trafficking in Erode, authorities discovered the child in their custody. Following this, the CWC intervened, conducted an inquiry, and took custody of the child. The petitioner argued that she and her husband were emotionally attached to the child and had submitted an application for adoption. They contended that the child’s removal from their care was unjustified.

Court’s Observations

The Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice M. Jothiraman stated that while the couple’s emotional attachment and care for the child were evident, these factors alone did not entitle them to claim custody or adoption rights. The Court emphasized that legal procedures and statutory guidelines under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAM Act), must be followed in determining the adoption and custody of children.

The Court observed:“Mere submission of an application seeking adoption would not confer any right to take custody of a child unilaterally and declare the said child as an adopted daughter. The best interest of the child includes its future, which has to be assessed by following the procedures and taking into consideration various factors, including the status, capacity, and mindset of the prospective adoptive parents.”

Best Interests of the Child

The Court emphasized that the child’s welfare, including their future prospects, environment, and overall well-being, must take precedence. The child, being only one-and-a-half years old and incapable of expressing emotions or preferences, required decisions to be made through proper statutory channels. The Court remarked that bypassing these procedures would not only contravene the law but also risk compromising the child’s welfare.

Legal Framework

The Court noted that the statutory framework mandates several steps, including:

1. Declaring the child legally free for adoption after thorough inquiries.

2. Tracing the biological parents or guardians, if possible.

3. Evaluating the eligibility, suitability, and capacity of prospective adoptive parents.

The Court held that it could not declare the petitioner as a foster parent or pave the way for direct adoption without adherence to these statutory requirements.

Dismissal of Habeas Corpus Petition

The Court concluded that the habeas corpus petition was not maintainable as the child was not in illegal detention but under the lawful custody of the state. The judgment clarified that the petitioner’s reliance on earlier precedents, where foster parenting had been granted, was misplaced, as each case must be decided on its unique facts and circumstances.

Directions to Authorities

The Court directed the authorities to:

1. Continue efforts to trace the child’s biological parents.

2. Follow all necessary procedures to declare the child fit for adoption.

3. Ensure that the adoption process complies with statutory guidelines to place the child with suitable and eligible adoptive parents.

Cause Title: X v. The Chairperson/Member Child Welfare Committee

Case No: H.C.P.No.2887 of 2024

Date: November-15-2024

Bench: Justice S.M. Subramaniam, Justice M. Jothiraman

[Read/Download order]