The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 2021 amendment to the Juvenile Justice Act, holding that shifting adoption orders from courts to District Magistrates does not violate Articles 14 and 21 or the doctrine of separation of powers.
Bombay High Court Upholds 2021 JJ Act Amendment
The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the 2021 amendment to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The amendment transferred the power to issue adoption orders from courts to District Magistrates.
A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande held that the change does not violate constitutional principles. The Court said the amendment aims to make the adoption process faster and more effective.
Petitioners Challenged Transfer Of Power
The Court heard writ petitions that challenged the amendment. The petitioners argued that adoption is a judicial function and should not be handled by an executive authority like the District Magistrate.
They claimed the amendment violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. They also argued that it breaches the doctrine of separation of powers.
Court Reviews Child-Centric Adoption Process
The High Court examined the framework of the Juvenile Justice Act. It noted that adoption under the law focuses on the welfare of the child.
The Court observed that detailed statutory provisions and regulations govern the process. The Central Adoption Resource Authority regulates the adoption framework.
The Bench stated that the authority issuing adoption orders mainly checks compliance with legal requirements and safeguards the child’s welfare.
District Magistrates Held Competent
The Court rejected the challenge and held that a function earlier performed by courts can be assigned to another competent authority.
The Bench noted that the District Magistrate heads district administration and child protection systems. According to the Court, this position allows effective coordination among stakeholders involved in adoption matters.
The Court said such coordination supports better implementation of the adoption framework.
Court Notes Quasi-Judicial Role Of District Magistrates
The High Court observed that District Magistrates already exercise quasi-judicial powers under several laws.
It held that they can discharge functions that require careful application of mind and compliance with statutory safeguards.
The Court further stated that complete separation of powers is not always necessary. It added that some overlap of functions is permissible in administrative law.
Safeguards Under JJ Act And CARA Regulations
The Court addressed concerns about expertise and procedural safeguards by referring to the framework under the Juvenile Justice Act and Adoption Regulations.
It noted that the process includes several checks and involves multiple agencies. These safeguards include home study reports, scrutiny by specialised agencies, and post-adoption monitoring.
The Bench held that these measures protect the welfare of the child, which remains the primary consideration.
Petitions Dismissed
Finding no merit in the challenge, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petitions.
The Court also vacated the interim stay that had stopped the transfer of pending adoption matters to District Magistrates.
It clarified that adoption orders passed by courts during the interim period will remain valid.
