The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act provides a mechanism for adoption without any restriction on religion, and personal beliefs and faiths cannot dictate the operation of an enabling statute. The paramount significance of the child's needs in adoption cases was emphasized.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the respondent’s letter No.Na.Ka. No.31/2014 dated 6.3.2014 relating to refuse to register the adoption deed executed by the petitioner and Ruckmaniammal, W/o Palanisamy, who is residing at No.85, Block No.6, Chinniampalayam Village, Nichampalayam Panchayat, Kuthami (Post), Perunthurai Taluk, Erode District, quash the same, consequently to direct the respondent to register the adoption deed executed between the petitioner and Ruckmaniammal, W/o Palanisamy, who is residing at No.85, Block No.6, Chinniampalayam Village, Nichampalayam Panchayat, Kuthami (Post), Perunthurai Taluk, Erode District.)

1. Religion is a mask worn by humans to attain eternal peace by treading the path propounded in the sacred texts. Just as the saying goes “All the roads leads to Rome”, likewise, “All the religions leads to eternal salvation”. Professing of religion is a matter purely within the domain of an individual and there can be no law which can force any individual to profess only the religion in which he/she was born.

2. The guarantees envisaged under the Constitution confers on the child the right to choose its religion, but which seldom happens, as the religion carried by his/her parents is passed on to the child. However, the mere fact that the religion of the parents is continued on the child would not deter the child to profess any other religion, as it would be against the tenets of the Constitution.

3. There are many children, who are orphaned for one reason or the other, who are taken in the care of the foster homes and homes run by the Government, who are not oblivious of their religion. Those children take on the religion of their adopted home and such adoptions are legalized through the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act (for short ‘JJ Act’). On the concept of adoption, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the decision in Shabnam Hashmi – Vs – Union of India (2014 (4) SCC 1), has succinctly culled out the niceties in the enactment of the JJ Act and for better appreciation, the same is quoted hereunder :-

“16. The Fundamental Rights embodied in Part-III of the Constitution constitute the basic human rights which inhere in every person and such other rights which are fundamental to the dignity and well being of citizens. While it is correct that the dimensions and perspectives of the meaning and content of fundamental rights are in a process of constant evolution as is bound to happen in a vibrant democracy where the mind is always free, elevation of the right to adopt or to be adopted to the status of a Fundamental Right, in our considered view, will have to await a dissipation of the conflicting thought processes in this sphere of practices and belief prevailing in the country. The legislature which is better equipped to comprehend the mental preparedness of the entire citizenry to think unitedly on the issue has expressed its view, for the present, by the enactment of the JJ Act 2000 and the same must receive due respect……..”

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid decision, has, in fact, elevated the concept of adoption as bordering fundamental rights, though not pointedly accepted as on date. Therefore, religion cannot be a bar for adoption, as it is a necessity in the current day scenario, which was the reason behind inclusion of the procedure for adoption u/s 56 of the JJ Act, 2015.

5. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position, the facts, as has been placed before this Court in the affidavit filed in support of this petition reveals that the petitioner, through her wedlock, had begotten three male and three female children, of which the petitioner had willingly decided to give her third son in adoption to one Ruckmaniammal, due to the poverty-stricken life of the petitioner, and necessary adoption deed was also entered into, which, when