SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOI, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
SHABNAM HASHMI – PETITIONERS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 470 OF 2005
Decided On : 19-02-2014
(1984) 2 SCC 244 – Relied upon
(b) Constitution of India – Article 44 – Personal beliefs and faiths though must be honoured, cannot dictate the operation of the provisions of an enabling statute – An optional legislation not containing an unavoidable imperative – Cannot be stultified by principles of personal law – Principles of personal law would, however, continue to govern any person who chooses to so submit himself until such time that the vision of a uniform Civil Code is achieved. (Para 11)
© Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right of a child to be adopted and right of a prospective father to adopt – Muslim personal law does not recognise adoption – Court cannot make such declaration. (Para 13)
(2000) 3 Bom CR 244; AIR 1999 Kerala 187 – Referred
Facts of the case:
In this writ petition prayer has been made for recognition of the right to adopt and to be adopted as a fundamental right under Part-III of the Constitution.
Alternatively it has been prayed to lay down optional guidelines enabling adoption of children by persons irrespective of religion, caste, creed etc. and further for a direction to the respondent Union of India to enact an optional law the prime focus of which is the child with considerations like religion etc. taking a hind seat.
Finding of the Court:
Guidelines in form of notification etc under JJ Act and otherwise already issued in matter of adoption.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT
RANJAN GOGOI, J. –
1. Recognition of the right to adopt and to be adopted as a fundamental right under Part-III of the Constitution is the vision scripted by the public spirited individual who has moved this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. There is an alternative prayer requesting the Court to lay down optional guidelines enabling adoption of children by persons irrespective of religion, caste, creed etc. and further for a direction to the respondent Union of India to enact an optional law the prime focus of which is the child with considerations like religion etc. taking a hind seat.
2. The aforesaid alternative prayer made in the writ petition appears to have been substantially fructified by the march that has taken place in this sphere of law, gently nudged by the judicial verdict in Lakshmi Kant Pandey Vs. Union of India[(1984) 2 SCC 244] and the supplemental, if not consequential, legislative innovations in the shape of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as amended in 2006 (hereinafter for short 'the JJ Act, 2000) as also The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules promulgated in the year 2007 (hereinafter for short 'the JJ Rules, 2007').
3. The alternative prayer made in the writ petition may be conveniently dealt with at the outset. The decision of this Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey (supra) is a high watermark in the development of the law relating to adoption. Dealing with inter-country adoptions, elaborate guidelines had been laid by this Court to protect and further the interest of the child. A regulatory body, i.e., Central Adoption Resource Agency (for short 'CARA') was recommended for creation and accordingly set up by the Government of India in the year1989. Since then, the said body has been playing a pivotal role, laying down norms both substantive and procedural, in the matter of inter as well as in country adoptions. The said norms have received statutory recognition on being notified by the Central Govt. under Rule 33 (2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and are today in force throughout the country, having also been adopted and notified by several states under the Rules framed by the states in exercise of the Rule making power under Section 68 of the JJ Act, 2000.
4. A brief outline of the statutory developments in the concerned sphere may now be sketched. In stark contrast to the provisions of the JJ Act, 2000 in force as on date, the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short 'the JJ Act,1986') dealt with only "neglected" and "delinquent juveniles". While the provisions of the 1986 Act dealing with delinquent juveniles are not relevant for the present, all that was contemplated for a 'neglected juvenile' is custody in a juvenile home or an order placing such a juvenile under the care of a parent, guardian or other person who was willing to ensure his good behaviour during the period of observation as fixed by the Juvenile Welfare Board.
The JJ Act, 2000 introduced a separate chapter i.e. Chapter IV under the head 'Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration 'for a child in need of care and protection. Such rehabilitation and social reintegration was to be carried out alternatively by adoption or foster care or sponsorship or by sending the child to an after-care organization. Section 41 contemplates adoption though it makes it clear that the primary responsibility for providing care and protection to a child is his immediate family. Sections 42, 43 and 44 of the JJ Act, 2000 deals with alternative methods of rehabilitation namely, foster care, sponsorship and being looked after by an after-care organisation.
5. The JJ Act, 2000, however did not define 'adoption' and it is only by the amendment of 2006 that the meaning thereof came to be expressed in the following terms: "2(aa)-"adoption" means the process through which the adopted child is permanently separated from his biological parents and become the leg
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.