“Best-Interest Regularisation” – Supreme Court Affirms Power under Article 142 to Restore Custody to Adoptive Parents despite Procedural Irregularities (Dasari Anil Kumar v. The Child Welfare Project Director, 2025)

1. Introduction

The appeals arose from a series of writ petitions filed by four sets of couples (and one single parent) who had informally adopted infant girls between 2021-24 under notarised deeds invoking HAMA. The police, acting on FIR No. 579/2024, seized custody of the children and handed them to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) on grounds that the JJ Act adoption protocol had not been followed. While a single-judge of the Telangana High Court declared the police action illegal, the Division Bench reversed that decision, directing the CWC to process adoption applications afresh. The aggrieved adoptive parents approached the Supreme Court.

Primary question: Can the Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, restore custody of children to adoptive parents when statutory formalities under the JJ Act were admittedly bypassed, if such restoration is demonstrably in the best interest of the child?

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court exercised powers under Article 142 to “do complete justice” and ordered that the four minor girls be returned to the respective adoptive parents on or before 14 August 2025.
• Relied heavily on the best-interest principle enshrined in Section 3 of the JJ Act, citing principles of family responsibility, safety and institutionalisation as a measure of last resort.
• Directed quarterly welfare reports by the State/District Legal Services Authorities, retaining supervisory jurisdiction to ensure the children’s wellbeing.
• Clarified that the order is confined to the peculiar facts and does not bar independent proceedings by competent authorities on any collateral issues (including criminal investigation into child-selling, if any).

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents and Authorities Cited or Alluded To

The judgment is comparatively succinct and does not expressly cite earlier case-law. Nevertheless, its reasoning draws on established doctrines that have featured in earlier landmark rulings:

• Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984) – The seminal case regulating inter-country adoption; laid down that the child’s welfare is paramount.
• Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (1997) – Reiterated rehabilitation and family-based care as preferable to institutionalisation.
• Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) & numerous Article 142 decisions – Recognised the Court’s wide equitable powers to fashion reliefs beyond statutory limitations.
• Re: Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in Tamil Nadu (2011) – Applied JJ Act principles to ensure non-institutional alternatives.

Though unnamed, these precedents form the doctrinal backdrop enabling the Court to prefer substantive child welfare over procedural compliance.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Intersection of HAMA and JJ Act: The adoptive parents relied on Section 11 of HAMA (requiring a simple registered deed) while the State invoked Sections 56-63 of the JJ Act, making adoption exclusively a domain of the JJ system where a child is “orphaned, abandoned or surrendered.” The Court implicitly recognised that an ouster dispute exists but chose not to resolve it definitively; instead it invoked Article 142 to bypass the statutory conflict in favour of the children’s present stability.
2. Best-interest Pivot: Citing Section 3(iv)–(xiii) JJ Act, the Court concluded that removal from a loving environment to institutional care is antithetical to the legislation’s own guiding principles.
3. Article 142 Justification: The Court emphasised the “peculiar facts” – the children had lived with the adoptive parents for months/years and had developed significant bonding. Strict insistence on JJ Act procedures post facto would inflict trauma and defeat statutory intent.
4. Safeguards: Continuous monitoring by Legal Services Authorities and Child Welfare Committees was ordered to address State concerns of trafficking or neglect while preserving familial continuity.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

• Recognition of “Best-Interest Regularisation”: The judgment effectively creates a category where non-compliant adoptions can be regularised under Article 142 if the child’s welfare so demands. This will likely be cited in future custody / adoption disputes where procedural lapses are established after the child has settled into a family.
• Balancing HAMA & JJ Act: While the Court steered clear of adjudicating the statutory overlap, its pragmatic approach may nudge legislatures or larger benches to clarify whether HAMA continues to coexist alongside the JJ Act for “in-family” or “private” adoptions.
• Guidance for Police & CWCs: State agencies are reminded that removal of children must be a last resort and must strictly follow Sections 36-38 JJ Act (social investigation, inquiry, declaration of legal free status) before institutionalising a child.
• Article 142 Boundary Setting: Demonstrates that the Court will wield its extraordinary power sparingly but robustly where subordinate fora oscillate between procedural rigidity and welfare imperatives.

4. Simplifying Complex Concepts

• Article 142 (Constitution): Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for “complete justice” in a cause, even if such order traverses ordinary statutory limitations.
• JJ Act Adoption Process: A structured pathway involving surrender declaration, Child Study Report, Legal Free Status, referral through Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), pre-adoption foster care, and judicial finalisation.
• HAMA Adoption: Allows Hindus (and persons covered under Section 2) to adopt via a registered deed if statutory conditions (age/gender/age-gap/number of children) are met – no court order needed.
• Child Welfare Committee (CWC): A quasi-judicial body constituted under JJ Act empowered to decide on the care, protection and rehabilitation of children in need.
• Institutionalisation as a Measure of Last Resort: Principle that placing a child in a shelter or orphanage should only occur when reunification, foster care or adoption is impossible.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Dasari Anil Kumar delivers a compassionate yet jurisprudentially significant ruling that foregrounds a child-centred lens over procedural orthodoxy. While the decision does not rewrite statutory adoption frameworks, it cements the Court’s readiness to leverage Article 142 to protect settled familial bonds when statutory machinery falters or lags. Practitioners should regard the case as an authoritative reminder that statutory non-compliance, particularly in sensitive domains like child custody, will not invariably trump tangible welfare considerations. Future courts and lawmakers may now be prompted to delineate clearer harmonisation between HAMA and the JJ Act to preclude recurrence of such conflicts.

This commentary is a scholarly analysis intended for academic and professional reference. It should not be construed as legal advice.