The main legal point established in the judgment is that aspiring parents, irrespective of their personal laws, are entitled to adopt a child in terms of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.

"We are guilty of many errors and many faults but our worst crime is abandoning the children, neglecting the fountain of life, Many of the things we need can wait. The child cannot. Right now is the time his bones are being formed, his blood is being made, and his senses are being developed. To him we cannot answer. "Tomorrow".

His name is "Today",

-quoted from Gabriela Mistral

2. "... Whether a civilized State committed to the Rule of law, governed by a written constitution and signatory to International Conventions on the Rights of a Child, could deny to a Section of its own citizens the right to adopt a child and to give that child, a home, a name and nationality?"

This is the question posed by Justice Rebello of the Bombay High Court in Manuel Theodore Dsouza and Another (see II (2000) DMC 292).

3. For the antagonists opposing adoption on the basis of religion, he gave a Sages advice:

"The Rule of law must reach them. Protests, from whatever Sections should not stop the pursuit of justice to those in need of it. The right of a child cannot be confused with the personal law of any Section of our pluralistic society. Adoption is not to be treated as an act by a State to force a child on unwilling parents. On the contrary it is a voluntary act on the part of, eligible persons to provide comfort, love and security to the abandoned and homeless children. No religion can deny family love to these children of God. Religions preach peace, and brotherhood. How can there be brotherhood if you will not treat a Section of your citizens as brothers". (emphasis added)

4. Justice Rebello did not stop with that question. He gave a Constitutional basis for the Courts to evolve a solution on the issue of adoption in the following words:

"Many of us examining such issues forget that we have taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution That requires examining legislation and fundamental rights in such a manner that the tears of the abandoned and homeless infants are wiped away, of course within the constitutional parameters. In this matter the exercise of powers of parens patriae and Article 226 to give effect to the fundamental rights, what is in issue are the enforceability of directive principles and International Covenants to which India is a signatory.

30. ... The right of the child is independent, as a human being, and flows from his right to life as contained in Article 21 of the Constitution. Any eligible parent or parents irrespective of religion can apply to adopt a child. Personal laws, as pointed out earlier, have to meet the test of Part III of the Constitution, if they are to be saved Customs and usage amongst Hindus provided for adoption as a custom, but it was restrictive. On the coming into force of the Constitution it is Article 21 in which the rights of a child are cradled. Custom has given way to Article 21. The case I have made out is that the right of adoption after coming into force of the Constitution is not referable to any customary or personal right. It is now impregnated in Article 21. Its flow now is sustained from the Republican Constitution and not age-old Customs".

33. .... Apart from this constitutional power this High Court also exercises the powers conferred on it under the amended Letters Patent. By virtue of Clause 17 as already stated, it has jurisdiction over infants. This jurisdiction has been traced and identified as the power of parens patriae. The power of the King in England in other words, the power of the sovereign stands, delegated to the Court exercising the jurisdiction over the person and property of minors. This power of the Court has been protected by Article 225 of the Constitution...." (emphasis added)

5. For a devout Christian, the question that always arises is whether the Christianity Recognizes adoption of a child. Before dealing with judicial decisions in this regard, it is necessary to reproduce from the Canon Law and the decrees issued thereunder:

Canon 110