Introduction

The case of Jasmine Kaur v. Union Of India And Others adjudicated by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on July 28, 2020, addresses a pivotal issue in the realm of child adoption and passport issuance in India. The petitioner, Jasmine Kaur, sought a directive for the Union of India and associated entities to issue her a passport without the mandatory 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA). This request arose from her adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA, 1956), amidst procedural challenges exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Summary of the Judgment

The petitioners argued that their adoption was conducted legally under HAMA, 1956, and thus, the stipulation of an NOC from CARA, mandated under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (J.J. Act, 2015), should be dispensed with. The respondents contended that CARA's approval is compulsory for all adoptions, including inter-country relative adoptions. The High Court, after thorough examination and expert opinions, concluded that Jasmine Kaur’s adoption was valid under HAMA, 1956, rendering the J.J. Act, 2015, and consequently CARA’s NOC requirement, inapplicable in this context. The Court directed CARA to issue the NOC and subsequently order the issuance of the passport.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced numerous precedents to fortify its stance:

• Sivarama K. and others vs The State of Kerala and others, 2020 – Affirmed that adoptions under HAMA, 1956, are not contravened by the J.J. Act, 2015.
• Lakshmi Kant Pandey vs Union of India, 1984 – Clarified that inter-country adoptions involving children living with biological parents do not necessitate adherence to J.J. Act, 2015.
• Anokha (Smt.) vs State of Rajasthan and others, 2004 – Emphasized that adoptions directly from biological parents do not fall under the purview of J.J. Act, 2015.
• Patel Mukesh Kumar Karshanbhai vs Regional Passport Authority, AIR 2012 – Established that the validity of a HAMA, 1956, adoption deed is presumed and cannot be questioned by passport authorities.
• Shabnam Hashmi vs Union of India and others, 2014 – Highlighted the secular and enabling nature of the J.J. Act, 2015, allowing concurrent applicability with personal laws like HAMA.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s legal reasoning hinged on the distinction between adoptions governed by HAMA, 1956, and those under the J.J. Act, 2015. Key points included:

• Applicability of Acts: HAMA, 1956, exclusively regulates adoptions among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, laying out specific conditions for such adoptions. The J.J. Act, 2015, on the other hand, is tailored for adoptions involving children in need of care and protection, such as orphans or abandoned children.
• Supremacy of Section 56(3) of J.J. Act, 2015: This section explicitly states that the J.J. Act does not apply to adoptions governed by HAMA, 1956, thereby nullifying the necessity for CARA’s NOC in such cases.
• Presumption Under HAMA: Sections 15 and 16 of HAMA render valid adoptions irreversible and presumed legally compliant once registered, preventing passport authorities from disputing their validity.
• Passport Authority Guidelines: While the Passport Manual, 2016, outlines requirements for inter-country adoptions, including CARA’s NOC, the Court observed that these stipulations primarily target adoptions under the J.J. Act, 2015, and not HAMA-based adoptions.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications:

• Clarification of Legal Framework: It delineates the boundaries between HAMA, 1956, and the J.J. Act, 2015, ensuring that valid adoptions under personal laws are not impeded by broader child protection statutes.
• Streamlining Passport Issuance: Adoptive parents conducting HAMA-based adoptions can now procure passports for their children without the additional hurdle of obtaining a CARA NOC, simplifying bureaucratic procedures.
• Precedential Value: The decision sets a benchmark for future cases involving multi-jurisdictional adoptions, fostering consistency and predictability in legal outcomes.
• Protection of Adoptive Parents’ Rights: Reinforces the inviolability of valid adoption deeds under HAMA, preventing arbitrary interference from authorities in personal familial matters.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA, 1956)

A personal law governing adoption among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. It prescribes the conditions and procedures for valid adoptions, ensuring they align with religious and societal norms.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (J.J. Act, 2015)

A secular legislation aimed at protecting vulnerable children, such as orphans and those in conflict with the law. It outlines stringent procedures for adoption to ensure the child’s welfare.

No Objection Certificate (NOC)

A formal document from CARA indicating that the adoption complies with regulatory standards. It is typically required for inter-country adoptions under the J.J. Act, 2015.

Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA)

The national adoption agency in India, established under the J.J. Act, 2015, responsible for regulating and monitoring adoptions to prevent malpractices.

Inter-Country Adoption

Adoption where either the adoptive parents or the child resides outside India. Such adoptions require adherence to international treaties and bilateral agreements.

Conclusion

The Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in Jasmine Kaur v. Union Of India And Others underscores the importance of respecting personal laws like HAMA, 1956, in the adoption process. By exempting HAMA-based adoptions from the J.J. Act, 2015's CARA NOC requirement, the judgment facilitates smoother transitions for families engaged in inter-country adoptions under personal laws. This not only streamlines administrative procedures but also reinforces the legal sanctity of valid adoption deeds. Moving forward, this precedent will aid in delineating clear boundaries between various adoption laws, thereby enhancing the judicial system's efficiency and responsiveness in familial matters.