High Court Reaffirms “Best Interests of the Child” and Statutory Procedure in Adoption Disputes

1. Introduction

The case of K. Savithri v. The Chairperson/Member, Child Welfare Committee (H.C.P. No. 2887 of 2024) was heard by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising the Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.M. Subramaniam and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Jothiraman. In this matter, the petitioner, a 47-year-old woman, claimed to have found a toddler (about 1½ years old) abandoned in the toilet of a train. The petitioner and her husband, who had been childless for nearly 20 years, took custody of the child and raised her as their own. The Child Welfare Committee (“CWC”), upon receiving information, took charge of the child, deeming the initial custody illegal because it bypassed established legal protocol for adoption.

The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition seeking the child’s return to her custody. Key issues in this case revolved around (1) whether the petition was maintainable under the writ of habeas corpus, (2) whether the couple’s unilateral assumption of custody constituted legal or illegal possession, and (3) how to apply the statutory adoption procedures, particularly focusing on the child’s “best interests” under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

2. Summary of the Judgment

After examining the facts, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s method of taking the child—without notifying authorities or following proper legal channels—was not valid. Consequently:

• The Court held that the child’s current custody with the government-run or government-approved agency was not illegal. Therefore, the ground for habeas corpus did not exist.
• Emphasizing that a child’s welfare and best interests are paramount, the Court reasoned that any formal handover or adoption must strictly follow the procedures set out in relevant statutes.
• The Court observed that it could not declare the petitioner as the child’s foster mother or direct adoption outright, because it lacked the machinery to assess the suitability of adoptive parents and the background of the child as required under the adoption-specific statutes.
• Ultimately, the Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition on the grounds of non-maintainability and advised the petitioner to follow the statutory route for adoption.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The key precedent discussed was a Division Bench judgment rendered on 27.01.2022 in H.C.P. No. 2086 of 2021. In that earlier case, the Court declared the petitioners as foster parents of a young child whose parentage was unknown. However, the Bench in the present judgment carefully distinguished that decision, noting that it depended on mitigating factors specific to that particular child. The Court emphasized that the earlier judgment could not serve as a blanket precedent to bypass formal adoption procedures whenever a child is found in uncertain circumstances.

Additionally, the Court referred to the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (“HAM Act”) and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”). These statutes clearly outline the procedural requirements and priority of the child’s welfare over any other considerations. While the earlier instance involved unique factual considerations for that child’s guardianship, the present case demanded strict adherence to statutory criteria before concluding adoption or foster care status.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

In dismissing the habeas corpus petition, the Court advanced two main pillars of legal reasoning:

1. Maintainability of the Habeas Corpus Petition: The Court determined that the child was in the lawful custody of the State, via the Child Welfare Committee and an approved children’s home. Because habeas corpus primarily addresses illegal or unlawful detention, and no such illegality was evident, the writ was not maintainable.
2. Best Interests of the Child and Statutory Compliance: Even though the petitioner may have forged an emotional bond with the child, the law in India demands that abandoned children must be placed in adoption only after (a) confirming that there are no biological parents willing or able to care for the child, (b) declaring the child legally free for adoption, and (c) completing a detailed assessment of the prospective adoptive parents by specialized agencies and authorities. The Court insisted that it could not short-circuit these requirements.

3.3 Impact

This judgment reinforces the principle that best interests of the child must not be compromised by expediency or emotional claims. The Court’s stance clarifies that:

• Habeas Corpus is not a shortcut: Where children are under protective or lawful custody of the State, it is improper to seek a child’s return via a habeas corpus petition.
• Strict Adoption Procedures: Prospective adoptive parents cannot assume a child’s custody unilaterally; they must adhere to the detailed evaluative processes outlined by the JJ Act, the HAM Act, and regulations issued by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA).
• Child-Centric Approach: Courts will continue to prioritize the safety, welfare, and long-term interests of children over an adult’s claim—including emotional attachments or convenience. This ensures that vulnerable children are neither trafficked nor placed in uncertain care arrangements.

Hence, future cases are likely to cite this ruling in reminding petitioners and legal counsel that formal adoption procedures are indispensable and cannot be circumvented under any guise, including habeas corpus petitions.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Habeas Corpus: A constitutional remedy to question illegal detention; stereotypically used when someone is unlawfully held and the Court must order their release. Crucially, when the government or a recognized body has lawful custody—especially in matters of child protection—the custody is not deemed “illegal,” and hence, a habeas corpus petition is not the correct legal avenue.
• Best Interests of the Child: A governing principle in family law that the rights, well-being, and safety of the child must take precedence over all other considerations. This principle ensures that the child’s future is secured in a nurturing environment.
• Adoption Procedures under JJ Act & HAM Act: These statutes outline a systematic process wherein agencies declare a child “free for adoption” after ruling out the presence of biological parents. Prospective parents must undergo background checks, home studies, and other formalities to confirm their suitability.
• CARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority): A statutory body under the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India. CARA oversees and regulates both in-country and inter-country adoptions, safeguarding that the correct procedures are followed and endorsing the child’s best interest.

5. Conclusion

The judgment in K. Savithri v. The Chairperson/Member, Child Welfare Committee underscores the paramount nature of adhering to established legal frameworks when taking custody of abandoned or orphaned children. Although the petitioner’s intent may have been rooted in compassion and a desire to care for the child, the Court emphasized that balancing the rights of biological parents (should they exist), ensuring the child’s long-term welfare, and preventing potential trafficking or misuse require strict statutory compliance.

In turn, this ruling clarifies future judicial processes in India regarding child custody and adoption by confirming that the High Court cannot bypass specialized considerations mandated by the law. It reaffirms that when children’s welfare is at stake, formal investigative and evaluative procedures are vital. Litigants and practitioners must heed this cautionary tale: adopting a child demands advanced notice to the appropriate authorities, thorough agency assessments, and final approvals, never reliance on habeas corpus to circumvent due process.

As Indian courts continue to refine child protection principles, this judgment stands as a testament to the judicial insistence on procedural rigor and child-centric adjudication above all else.