Adoption
What is adoption?
Adoption is a legal process through which a couple, or a person takes up the permanent parental responsibility for a child who is not biologically their offspring. After completing this process, the child acquires the same legal status, rights and privileges as a biological child of the adoptive parents, while all legal ties with the biological family have ended. Adoption is different from guardianship or foster care, as they are temporary arrangements that do not alter the legal relationship between the biological family and the child permanently. The Black’s Law dictionary defines adoption as “the act of one who takes another’s child into his own family, treating him as his own and giving him all the rights and duties as his own child.”
Official definition of Adoption
Adoption as defined in Legislation
In India, adoption is governed by two main legislative frameworks operating simultaneously. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is the secular framework applicable to all persons regardless of religion and is the only statute that expressly defines adoption. The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which governs adoptions within the Hindu community (including Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs); conspicuously does not define the term, a gap in the law that legal scholars recognise. A third framework, the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, applies to Muslims, Christians, Parsis and others whose personal laws do not allow adoption. The important difference is that the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, creates only a guardian-ward relationship, not a full parent-child legal relationship.
Legal provisions relation to Adoption:
The JJ Act contains the most comprehensive statutory definition and procedural framework for adoption in India
Definition: Section 2(2) of the JJ Act defines adoption as “the process through which the adopted child is permanently separated from his biological parents and becomes a lawful child of his adoptive parents with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that are attached to a biological child”
Purpose and scope: Section 56(1) establishes adoption as a measure of rehabilitation and social reintegration, providing that adoption shall be resorted to in order to ensure the right to a family for orphaned, abandoned, and surrendered children. Section 56 (2) enables the adoption of a child from a relative by another relative, irrespective of religion, thus creating a secular path for intra-family adoption.
Eligibility of Prospective Adoptive Parents: Section 57 prescribes criteria for prospective adoptive parents. They must be financially capable, physically fit, mentally alert and highly motivated to provide a good upbringing to the child. The provision permits single and divorced persons to adopt, subject to the satisfaction of these criteria and compliance with the Adoption Regulations framed by the Central Adoption Resource Authority. Also, a single male is prohibited from adopting a girl child.
Procedure for Domestic Adoption: Section 58 lays out the procedure for adoption by residents of India. A Specialised Adoption Agency prepares a Home Study Report of the prospective parents and, upon finding them eligible, refers a child who has been declared legally free for adoption, along with the child’s study report and medical report. Once the prospective parents accept the child, the SAA places the child in pre- adoption foster care and files an application before the District Magistrate for an adoption order.
Intercountry adoption: Section 59 establishes the procedure for intercountry adoption of orphans, abandoned or surrendered children. It provides that if a child cannot be placed with an Indian or Non-resident Indian prospective adoptive parent within sixty days of being declared legally free for adoption, the child becomes eligible for inter- country adoption. These provisions ensure transparency, child welfare and compliance with international standards, and treat inter- country adoption as a last resort after exhausting domestic placement options.
Role of the District Magistrate:
- Section 61 requires the District Magistrate to be satisfied that the adoption is in the best interests of the child and that the wishes of the child, wherever capable of being understood, have been considered. It also mandates that no improper payment of reward has been exchanged for the adoption. Adoption proceedings must be conducted in camera and disposed of within 2 months.
- Section 62 authorises the Central Government to prescribe detailed procedural requirements and documentation for adoptions through regulations. Applications involving foreign prospective adoptive parents must be disposed of within four months from the date of receipt of all requisite reports.
- Section 64 requires the District Magistrate to forward information regarding adoption records and to enable regulatory oversight.
Legal Effect of Adoption: - Section 63 provides that once an adoption order is issued, the adopted child is deemed to be the lawful child of the adoptive parents for all purposes. The child acquires the same rights and status as a biological child, and all legal ties with the biological family are severed, with one exception, which is that the property that already vested in the child prior to adoption is not affected.
Prohibition on Illegal Adoption: - Section 80 prescribes punishment for illegal adoption. Any person who adopts or gives a child in adoption in contravention of the provisions of the JJ Act shall be punishable with imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of up to one lakh rupees or both. This provision is central to CARA’s mandate to prevent child trafficking and exploitation under the guise of adoption.
The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, is the first legislation enacted by the Indian Parliament specifically on the subject of adoption.
Capacity of a Hindu Male to Adopt Section 7 of the HAMA Act lays down that a Hindu Male who wishes to adopt must satisfy the following conditions under Section 7. He must be a major and of sound mind, meaning he must not be suffering from any mental illness that impairs his capacity to make such a decision. The consent of his wife is mandatory for a valid adoption; an adoption made without such consent is considered void. Additionally, where a Hindu male wishes to adopt a girl child, he must be at least twenty one years older than the child at the time of adoption.
Capacity of a Hindu Female to Adopt Section 8 of the HAMA Act, sets out the conditions for a Hindu female wishing to adopt a child. She must be of legal age and must not have an unsound mind. If she is married, she may adopt only with the full consent of her husband. However, the consent of the husband is not required in cases where the husband has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind, has renounced the world by entering any religious order, has ceased to be a Hindu by converting to another religion or whether the marriage has been dissolved.
Who may give a child in Adoption? Section 9 governs the capacity to give a child in adoption and distributes the child's rights across three categories of persons. The father, if alive, has the primary right to give the child in adoption. However, this right cannot be exercised without the consent of the mother, unless the mother has renounced the world, ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared of unsound mind by a competent court. The mother may give the child in adoption independently if the father is deceased, has renounced the world, has ceased to be a Hindu, or has been legally declared of unsound mind. Where both parents are deceased or where the child has been abandoned, the guardian of the child may give the child in adoption, but only with the prior permission of a court. The court must be satisfied, before granting such permission, that the adoption is in the welfare of the child.
CARA- The Regulatory Body The central Adoption Resource Authority is the statutory body under the Ministry of Women and Child Development, established under the JJ Act, 2015, to regulate and monitor both in- country and inter-country adoptions in India. CARA operates the CARINGS portal (Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System), a centralised online platform that manages prospective parent registrations, child referrals and adoption tracking. CARA’S mandate includes ensuring that all adoptions comply with the Adoption Regulations, 2022, and that inter-country adoptions adhere to India’s obligations under the Hague Convention.
Adoption as defined in International instruments
Two primary international instruments govern the framework for adoption at the international level, both of which have been ratified by India and inform the structure of its domestic adoption law.
The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption 1993
The Hague Convention of 1993 is the primary multilateral treaty governing intercountry adoption. The Convention does not define adoption in abstract terms but establishes a framework of safeguards, cooperation mechanisms and minimum standards for intercountry adoption with the explicit objective of preventing the abduction, sale, or trafficking of children. It requires that states take measures to enable children to remain with their family of origin wherever possible, and treats intercountry adoption as a viable option only when no suitable permanent family can be found for the child in their country of origin. The Convention requires that adoption be carried out in the best interests of the child and with respect for their fundamental rights, and that appropriate measures be taken to prevent improper financial or other gain in connection with an adoption.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in 1989 and ratified by India in 1992, is the primary international human rights instrument addressing adoption. The UNHRC does not define adoption outright, but Article 21 sets out the conditions that states must meet if they recognise or permit the institution of adoption. It requires that the best interests of the child be the paramount consideration in any adoption system. Adoption may only be authorised by competent authorities in accordance with applicable laws and procedures, on the basis of all relevant and reliable information regarding the child’s status, and with the informed consent of all relevant parties where required. Article 21 also addresses intercountry adoption, treating it as a permissible alternative means of childcare only when a suitable family cannot be found for the child within their own country, and requiring that placements under such arrangements carry safeguards and standards equivalent to those for domestic adoption, and that they do not result in improper financial gain for those involved. Article 21 supplements this by situating adoption within a broader framework of alternative care for children deprived of their family environment, alongside foster placement and residential care.
Adoption as defined in official documents
The Adoption Regulations, 2022, framed by CARA under the authority conferred by Section 62 of the JJ Act, constitute the primary subordinate legislation governing the adoption process in India. While the Regulations do not re-define adoption beyond the JJ Act’s statutory definition, they operationalise it by prescribing detailed, procedures, timelines, documentation requirements and eligibility standards for all stages of the adoption process. From the registration of prospective adoptive parents on the CARINGS portal to the issuance of the adoption order by the District Magistrate. The Regulations also set out the standards for Specialised Adoption Agencies, the process for declaring a child legally free for adoption and the framework for post-adoption follow-up. The 2022 Regulations replaced the earlier Adoption Regulations 2017, and introduced several changes including revised age criteria for prospective parents and updated provisions for inter- country adoption in conformity with the Hague Convention.
CARA Annual Reports
CARA publishes annual reports that compile statistical data on adoptions completed in India in a given year, disaggregated by category, state, gender, age of child and religion of adoptive parents. These reports reflect how the term adoption is understood and measured in official administrative practice, specifically, what counts as a completed adoption for regulatory purposes. The reports also track the number of children declared legally free for adoption on CARINGS, the number of registered prospective adoptive parents, and the average time taken to complete the adoption process. This data is central to understanding the implementation gap between children in institutional care and those actually placed through the formal adoption system
National Policy for Children, 2013 (Ministry of Women and Child Development)
The National Policy for Children, 2013 issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, recognises adoption as one of the preferred forms of non-institutional alternative care for children who cannot be cared for by their biological families. The policy situates adoption within a broader continuum of child protection responses, alongside foster care and kinship care, and affirms the principle that institutional care should be a measure of last resort. It does not define adoption independently but uses the term consistently to refer to permanent legal placement with a family, as distinct from temporary or non-legal arrangements.
Reports by International Organisations
UNICEF’s reports on child protection in India reference adoption as a formal alternative care mechanism and assess India’s performance against UNCRC Article 21 standards, particularly in relation to intercountry adoption safeguards and the ratio of children in institutional care to those placed in family-based care. The Hague Conference on Private International Law also publishes country profile reports on India as a Contracting State to the 1993 Convention, which document how CARA operationalises the Convention’s framework and flag areas where India’s practice aligns with or deviates from international standards. These reports treat adoption, consistent with UNCRC and the Hague Convention framing, as a permanent family placement mechanism to be distinguished clearly from guardianship, fostering or informal care arrangements.
Adoption as defined under case laws
Shabnam Hashmi v Union of India (2014) – Adoption as a Secular Option
Shabnam HASHMI V. Union of India is a landmark Supreme Court decision on the intersection of personal law and secular adoption legislation in India. The petitioner, a Muslim woman and social activist, sought recognition of adoption as a fundamental right available to all persons regardless of their religion, under Article 21. Also, she asked to lay down optional, religion-neutral guidelines enabling adoption by any person, irrespective of religion or caste. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board intervened, arguing that Islamic law does not recognize adoption (instead, practices kafala, where a child is taken care of but does not inherit the family name), and that personal laws should not be overridden.
The core legal principles laid down were as follows:
- Personal beliefs, faiths and personal laws cannot dictate or paralyse the operation of an enabling, secular statute passed by the Parliament. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is an optional, enabling legislation. It provides a framework for anyone who chooses to access it. - The JJ Act is a small step forward in achieving the goal of a Uniform Civil Code under Article 44 of the Constitution. The statutory definition of “adoption” under Section 2(aa) of the Act, permanently separates a child from biological parents and makes them a legitimate child of the adoptive parents with all associated rights. - The Court did not elevate a prospective right to the status of a Fundamental Right under Article 21 if there are deep, conflicting viewpoints between communities that have not yet been bridged by legislative or social consensus.
Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India
The above case was initiated as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution, triggered by a letter written by Laxmi Kant Pandey, an advocate practicing in the Supreme Court. The petitioner complained of malpractices, corruption and trafficking by voluntary social agencies offering Indian children for adoption to foreign parents. He alleged that children were subjected to horrendous journeys and faced high risks to their lives. If they managed to survive, they ended up as beggars or prostitutes due to lack of proper care by foreign foster parents. The relief he sought was a restraint on private Indian agencies from routing children abroad and a directive to the Government of India, the Indian Council of Child Welfare, and the Indian Council of Social Welfare to carry out their legal obligations regarding inter country adoptions. The Core Principles laid down were as follows: - The Supreme Court recognised that children are a “supremely important national asset” and emphasised the constitutional duty of the State to protect childhood from material abandonment and exploitation. As India lacked a uniform statutory framework for inter-country adoptions, the Court utilised the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to outline mandatory guidelines. - The Principle of Domestic Priority: Every effort must be first made to rehabilitate abandoned, destitute, or orphan children through adoption within India. A child can only be considered available for intercountry adoption if no suitable Indian family steps forward to adopt within a period of two months. If a child is handicapped or in a bad state of health requiring urgent foreign medical attention that the local agency cannot provide, the two-month waiting period does not apply.
- Requirements for Foreign Adoptive Parents: No foreign parent can apply directly to an Indian agency or home. The application must be routed through social or child welfare agency listed or recognised by the government of the foreigner’s country of residence. The sponsoring foreign agencies must prepare a professional Home Study Report assessing the family’s background, financial status, health, marital stability and psychological capacity to handle trans-racial/ trans- cultural adoption. Applications must include notarised certificates of health, financial status, a marriage certificate, and a legal undertaking to complete formal adoption within two years of the child's arrival.
- Safeguards Regarding Biological Parents: If known, biological parents must be socialised on the full implications of relinquishing the child, including the complete termination of contact and the possibility of adoption by foreigners of a different faith. After a decision to surrender the child is made, biological parents must be given a three- month period to reconsider. Once this period lapses, the surrender becomes irrevocable. No agreement to surrender a child can be entered into or permitted prior to the child’s birth or within three months from the date of birth. Regulating Indian Agencies & Eliminating Commercialisation: Authorised Agencies Only: All private adoptions conducted by unauthorized individuals are barred. Adoptions must be handled via government-recognised child welfare agencies that maintain audited accounts. Child Study Report: A detailed report covering the child's identity, medical history (certified by a paediatrician), and emotional development must be prepared. Cap on Expenses: To stop trafficking under the guise of maintenance, the child-care home may only claim a maximum reimbursement of Rs 60 per day for maintenance expenses from the date of selection until the child leaves, alongside actual hospital/medical bills. These must be processed through the recognized agency, and no direct donations can be accepted until the child arrives abroad.
Basavarajappa v. Gurubasamma and Ors.
This case is a foundational precedent in Hindu Law regarding the immediate operational effects of a valid adoption on coparcenary property and the strict statutory limits of divesting ancestral property under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The core property belonged to an ancestral estate originally held by a Hindu male named Narasappa. In he above case, the respondent, Gurubasamma, is Narasappa’s wife and Basavarajappa, the appellant, is his adopted son. Upon Narasappa’s intestate death, a dispute arose regarding the partition and allocation of shares in the ancestral estate. The female feirs filed for partition, claiming that the adopted son was not entitled to an immediate half- share of the ancestral property by survivorship upon his adoption. They argued that the property had already “vested” in Narasappa and could not be divested or reduced by the arrival of an adopted son.
The key principles held by the Supreme Court were as follows:
- The Supreme Court reiterated that when a valid adoption occurs, the adopted child severs all legal and familial ties with their biological family and is completely transplanted into the adoptive family. From the exact date of the adoption, the child assumes the precise legal status of a naturally born child within the adoptive family, acquiring full, immediate coparcenary rights in any ancestral property held by the family. - Narrow Interpretation of Section 12(c) of HAMA Section 12(c) is designed to protect estates that have already legally vested in other independent third persons before the adoption takes place. It does not apply to the adoptive father’s own coparcenary interest. A Mitakshara coparcenary interest is, by its very nature, fluctuating. It expands or contracts with births, adoptions, or deaths within the coparcenary. Therefore, the father's share diminishing to accommodate his new coparcener (the adopted son) does not constitute an illegal "divesting" of an estate under Section 12(c). - Application of Survivorship vs. Notional Partition: The Court clearly demarcated how property must be calculated when a coparcener dies, leaving behind an adopted son and female heirs: Upon adoption, the total ancestral property splits into a joint coparcenary between the father (Narasappa) and the son (Basavarajappa). Thus, the son instantly holds a 1/2 share by survivorship. Intestate Demise: When Narasappa died intestate in 1982, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act triggered a notional partition of only Narasappa’s 1/2 share. - was Final Math: Narasappa's 1/2 share converted into separate property and devolved equally among his 9 class-I heirs (the widow, the 8 daughters, and the adopted son). Each received 1/9th of that half (which equals a 1/18th share of the total estate). Consequently, the adopted son was entitled to his original 1/2 (9/18) plus his inherited 1/18, totaling a 10/18 (or 5/9) share of the entire estate. - Protection of the Family Dwelling House (Section 23) The Court addressed the partition of the family home under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act (prior to its amendment). Principle: Where a Hindu male dies intestate leaving behind both male and female heirs, and the property includes a dwelling house wholly occupied by members of the family, female heirs cannot insist on a physical partition of that house unless the male heir(s) choose to divide their shares. The adopted son, as the sole male heir, maintains the right to resist the physical splitting of the family home during his lifetime, subject to the daughters' and widow's right of residence.
Brajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
This case stands as a key authority regarding the strict statutory interpretation of a married Hindu woman’s capacity to adopt a child under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, firmly establishing the distinction between de facto separation and de jure divorce. The Supreme court affirmed the High Court’s ruling that the adoption was void under the law. The apex court laid down the following foundational legal principles: - Strict Textual Adherence to Statutory Capacity: The Court analysed Section 6 (which mandates that an adopter must have the capacity and right to adopt) alongside Section 8 of HAMA. Section 8(c) is an exhaustive codification of when a female Hindu can adopt. A married woman can only legally adopt if she falls strictly into one of the enumerated statutory exceptions: her marriage is legally dissolved (divorce), her husband is dead, has renounced the world, has ceased to be a Hindu, or has been judicially declared of unsound mind. - De Facto Separation vs De Jure Divorce: The appellant argued that because the marriage was a unconsummated “sham” and the parties lived apart for decades, she was practically a single woman. The Supreme Court firmly rejected this extension of logic. here is a vast legal and conceptual chasm between a woman who is a "divorcee" and a woman "living like a divorced woman." De facto separation, regardless of how long, agonizing, or absolute it is, does not dissolve the marital tie. Only a de jure dissolution of marriage via a competent legal decree satisfies the conditions of Section 8(c). - Total Bar on Husband’s Consent for Married Female Adopters: The Court pointed out a structural imbalance for purposefully crafted by the legislature between Section 7 and Section 8. A married Hindu male can adopt with the consent of his wife. Section 8 does not contain a parallel clause allowing a married female to adopt with the consent of her husband. A married Hindu woman has zero standalone capacity to adopt during the lifetime of her husband unless the husband suffers from the specific disqualifications listed in Section 8(c). Her husband's consent cannot cure a lack of statutory capacity. - Separation of Equity and Statutory Compliances: The Court acknowledged the highly emotional and sensitive nature of the case, noting that Brajendra Singh had genuinely cared for his disabled adoptive mother out of affection. Legal adoptions permanently alter civil status and property rights; hence, they must strictly satisfy statutory mandates. Equitable or emotional considerations, such as the nobility of the relationship or the dependency of a disabled individual, cannot be used by courts to override an explicit statutory bar. Any adoption made without strict capacity is void ab initio.
Variations:
Slight Differences and Nuances in the Concept
The most fundamental conceptual variation surrounding adoption in India is the difference between adoption and guardianship. Under personal laws applicable to Muslims, Christians and Parsis, there is no legal mechanism for adoption. These frameworks only allow the appointment of a guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. A guardian- ward relationship is temporary, does not sever ties with the biological family, does not confer inheritance rights equivalent to a biological child and terminates upon the ward attaining majority. Adoption, by contrast, is permanent, ends all legal ties with the biological family, and confers full legal status as a natural child. The distinction has significant consequences for succession, property rights and the child’s legal identity.
A second important nuance is the distinction between adoption and pre- adoption foster care, which is a transitional arrangement under the JJ Act during which a child is placed with prospective adoptive parents after they have accepted the child but before the District Magistrate has issued a formal adoption order. The child is not yet legally adopted during this period, and the placement can theoretically be reversed. This intermediate stage is sometimes misunderstood as adoption having already occurred, when legally it has not.
A third nuance is the concept of a child being “legally free for adoption”, a term of art under the JJ Act that refers specifically to children who have been declared so by a Child Welfare Committee after following the prescribed procedure. Not all orphaned, abandoned, or surrendered children in institutional care automatically qualify, they need to go through a formal declaration process, which is itself a significant bottleneck in the system.
Variations in Legislative Scheme Arising from State Specific Legislations
Adoption in India is primarily governed by central legislation, the JJ Act and the HAMA Act. There is no significant parallel state adoption legislation of note. However, meaningful variations can be seen at the level of state- level implementation frameworks. Under the JJ Act, each state is required to establish a State Adoption Resource Agency to coordinate and monitor adoption- related activities within the state. The capacity, functioning, and resourcing of SARAs vary considerably across states. States like Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu have relatively better-functioning adoption ecosystems with more recognised Specialised Adoption Agencies, whereas several northeastern states and union territories have had persistent gaps in SARA functioning and SAA availability.
Functional Variations Across Regions/ States/ High Courts
The most significant functional variation currently operative in Indian adoption law arises from the JJ (Amendment) Act, 2021, which transferred the authority to issue adoption orders from civil courts to District Magistrates. While this amendment applies uniformly across India as a matter of statute, its implementation has been uneven. The Bombay High Court, in January 2023, issued an interim stay on the transfer of this power to District Magistrates, holding that the constitutional validity of this transfer requires examination, particularly given that adoption orders affect civil rights and may require adjudicatory rather than administrative authority. As of 2025, this stay remains operative, meaning that in Maharashtra, adoption orders continue to be issued by courts rather than DMs. Other High Courts and states, however, have proceeded with the DM- based model, creating a situation where the same legal process operates differently depending on the jurisdiction in which the adoption is filed.
There is also considerable variation in the time taken to complete adoptions across states. CARA’s data has historically shown that adoption proceedings in some states are disposed of relatively quickly under the two-month timeline prescribed under Section 61 while in others, delays at the CWC, SAA, or DM level result in timelines stretching beyond the statutory limit.
3.4 Use of Different Nomenclature Across Regions/States/High Courts
In classical Hindu legal texts and in older case law, the term dattaka is used to refer to the traditional form of adoption under Hindu law, involving a formal giving and taking ceremony. HAMA, while codifying and reforming Hindu adoption law, replaced this customary framework with a statutory one, though some older judgements and academic writing continue to use dattaka when referring to Hindu adoption. The term retains relevance in cases involving customary adoption predating HAMA’S enactment, particularly in disputes over property and succession.
In common usage and in some government communications, the terms “adoption” and “guardianship” are sometimes used interchangeably by laypersons, particularly in communities where formal adoption under the JJ Act is not accessible or known. This conflation is legally significant because the two carry entirely different consequences, as discussed above.
The JJ Act and the CARA regulations also use specific terms of art, “orphan,” “abandoned child,” and “surrendered child” to define the three categories of children eligible for adoption under the secular framework. These are collectively referred to as OAS children. Each category has a distinct declaration process before a CWC, and the distinction matters because the timelines and procedures for declaring a child legally free for adoption differ depending on which category they fall into.
International Experience:
How Other Countries Have Sought to Define, Operationalise, and Collect Data Regarding Adoption
United Kingdom
The primary legislation governing adoption in England and Wales is the Adoption and Children Act, 2002, which is widely regarded as the most significant law for adoption in England and Wales in nearly three decades. The Act does not offer a freestanding definition of adoption, but its framework makes clear that adoption is the legal process by which an adoption order grants parental responsibility for a child to the adopters, with the consequence that all previous parental rights and responsibilities are extinguished. One of the most significant features of the 2002 Act is its paramountcy principle: the child’s welfare throughout their entire life – not merely during childhood must be the paramount consideration of any court or adoption agency making a decision relating to adoption. A welfare checklist, modelled on that in the Children Act 1989, must be applied in all such decisions, with the court or agency being required to consider the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings in light of their age and understanding, their particular needs and the likely effect of the adoption on them throughout life.
The 2002 Act also expanded the categories of persons eligible to adopt, permitting unmarried couples and same sex couples to adopt jointly, and introduced special guardianship orders as a formal legal status intermediate between full adoption and ordinary guardianship, a status that provides security and permanence to a child without completely severing their legal relationship with the birth family. This is a meaningful structural innovation with no direct equivalent in Indian law. The Act also established a statutory framework for adoption support services, requiring local authorities to provide ongoing financial assistance, counselling, therapeutic support, and parenting advice to adoptive families both before and after the adoption order. An Adoption Support Fund, introduced in 2015, provides dedicated funding for therapeutic support for adoptive families. The UK’s data collection on adoption is administered centrally through the Department for Education, which publishes annual adoption statistics disaggregated by age, gender, ethnicity, and placement type.
United States of America
In the United States, adoption is governed mainly by state law, and there is no uniform national adoption code that applies to all domestic adoptions. Each state has its own set of regulations for domestic adoption, determining matters such as who may arrange an adoption, what eligibility criteria prospective parents must meet, and what post-adoption requirements apply. The Uniform Adoption Act proposed by the Uniform Laws Commission serves as a model that some states have drawn on, but it has not been uniformly adopted. The Act provides that any individual who has reached adulthood may adopt, though states vary on what factors may disqualify a prospective parent. Some disqualify unmarried or single individuals, others consider criminal history or employment instability as disqualifying factors, and some impose broader reputability requirements.
At the federal level, intercountry adoption is governed by the Intercountry Adoption Act, 2000, which was enacted to implement the United States’ obligations under the Hague convention. The Act designated the Department of State as the US Central Authority for intercountry adoption, mandated federal accreditation standards for adoption service providers and established comprehensive safeguards to ensure that a child is genuinely eligible for adoption and that the adoption is in their best interest. Data on adoption in the US is collected at both the federal and state levels, with the Children’s Bureau under the Department of Health and Human Services publishing annual reports on domestic adoptions and the State Department tracking publishing data on intercountry adoptions.
South Africa
Adoption in South Africa is governed by the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, which defines adoption as a legal process through which a person or couple becomes the legal parent or parents of a child not biologically theirs, transferring all parental rights and responsibilities from the biological parents to the adoptive parents while ensuring the child’s best interests are prioritised. South Africa ratified the Hague Convention in 2003, and the Children’s Act incorporates the Convention’s inter-country adoption standards into domestic law. Section 248 of the Children’s Act also provides that an adopted child, an adoptive parent, and a biological parent of an adopted child may access information contained in the adoption register once the adopted child has reached the age of 18, subject to certain conditions.
A notable and distinctive feature of the South African framework is the provision for post- adoption agreements. Under the Children’s Act, a parent or guardian of a child may enter into a post- adoption agreement with prospective adoptive parents to make provision for continued communication and sharing of information after the adoption order is granted. To be enforceable, such an agreement must be made an order of court. This mechanism, while not constituting a formal open adoption framework in the legal sense, allows for a degree of structured continued contact between the adopted child and their biological family, an approach that India’s adoption framework does not currently accommodate.
Deviations from Indian Practice
Several points of meaningful divergence emerge from the comparative exercise above. Firstly, the most structurally significant deviation is that India operates two parallel adoption regimes, the HAMA and the JJ Act, simultaneously, with different eligibility criteria, procedures and legal consequences. None of the three jurisdictions surveyed above has an equivalent fragmentation. The UK, the US, and South Africa each operate a single unified statutory framework Second, the concept of open adoption or post adoption contact, which is formally accommodated in the South African framework through court enforceable post adoption agreements, and is practiced in various forms in the UK and the US, has no recognised place in India’s adoption law. Under both HAMA and JJ Act, adoption is treated as a clean and complete severance of all legal ties with the biological family. While Section 63 of the JJ Act preserves property rights that had already vested in the child before adoption, there is no mechanism for any form of continued contact or information exchange with the biological family post adoption. Given growing research on the psychological importance of identity formation for adopted children, this is a gap that Indian law has not yet addressed.
Third, the special guardianship order introduced by the UK’s 2002 Act, a status that offers permanence and security to a child without requiring complete severance of ties with the birth family, has no direct equivalent in Indian law, The closest analogue in the Indian system is foster care under the JJ Act, but foster care is explicitly temporary and lacks the legal permanence that special guardianship provides. This is particularly relevant for older children or children from minority communities where full adoption may be culturally or legally inaccessible, who might benefit from a legal status that offers security without requiring complete legal severance. Fourth, on eligibility of prospective adoptive parents, both the UK and South Africa explicitly permit same sex couples to adopt. In India, the Supreme Court in Supriyo v. Union of India, while declining to recognise same-sex marriages, also left open the question of adoption rights for same sex couples, and CARA’s Adoption and Regulations 2022 currently restrict adoption to married heterosexual couples or single persons. This represents a significant divergence from the direction of law in several comparable jurisdictions.
Any Learnings or Best Practices
Several best practices from international experience are worth noting as reference points for the evolution of India’s adoption framework. The UK’s approach of framing the welfare principle explicitly as a consideration extending throughout the child’s entire life, rather than during the process or minority, is a meaningful conceptual advance that India’s adoption law has not explicitly adopted. India’s framework, while grounded in the best interests standard, does not frame it in these longitudinal terms. The South African model of court- enforceable post- adoption agreements offers a practical template for how India could introduce some form of regulated post-adoption contact without fully dismantling the severance principle that underpins current adoption law. This would be particularly valuable for children who are adopted at an older age and have formed emotional ties with members of their biological family. The US model of requiring federal accreditation for adoption service providers, with structured oversight and monitoring, is comparable to CARA’s role in India, but the US system’s multi- tier quality assurance and accreditation renewal requirements offer a more developed model for ensuring standards at the intermediary level, which has been a concern in India's implementation landscape. Finally, the development of a single unified adoption legislation in place of India's dual-track system remains the most consistently cited international learning. A uniform law would reduce forum shopping between HAMA and the JJ Act, close the gap for communities whose personal law provides no adoption mechanism, and bring India's adoption architecture closer to the single-framework models that most comparable countries operate.
Technological Changes and Advances
Appearance of 'Adoption' in Database
Database A: CARINGS (Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System)
Official database maintained by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), a statutory body under the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, functioning under Section 68 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, as amended in 2021. CARINGS is the single, centralised portal on which every legal adoption case in the country is recorded in real time, rather than compiled later from offline records. A child who is orphaned, abandoned, or surrendered is first registered on the portal by a Specialised Adoption Agency (SAA) or Child Care Institution (CCI); a Prospective Adoptive Parent (PAP) — whether a Resident Indian, NRI, OCI, or foreign national — is separately registered as an applicant. The system then runs an automated "referral" process that matches a registered child to a PAP based on eligibility, seniority on the waitlist, and stated preferences, with referral cycles for NRI, OCI, and foreign PAPs run twice a week. Each match then moves through legal clearance — a declaration by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), a court order, and, for inter-country cases, a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and a Conformity Certificate issued under Article 23 of the Hague Convention on Inter-country Adoption, 1993 (which India ratified in 2003). Because every step is logged as it happens, CARINGS works as a live case-tracking system as well as a statistical database. The data fields captured include adoption type (in-country or inter-country), state/UT-wise numbers, gender-wise break-up of adopted children, health-status-wise break-up (including children with special needs), and agency-wise data across State Adoption Resource Agencies (SARAs), District Child Protection Units (DCPUs), and SAAs. Figures are published annually by financial year, with in-country and inter-country adoptions reported separately alongside a combined grand total, going back to 2015-16, and are available as downloadable PDFs on CARA's website.
Database B: Crime in India Report, National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)
Official database maintained by the National Crime Records Bureau, an attached office of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, which compiles crime data reported by police stations across the country into its annual "Crime in India" publication. While NCRB does not track lawful adoptions, it becomes relevant to the term "adoption" through its chapter on "Crimes Against Children," where the offence head "Kidnapping and Abduction of Children" is broken down into further sub-categories such as kidnapping for begging, kidnapping for ransom, kidnapping to compel marriage, procuration of minor girls, and importation of girls from foreign countries — categories that are cited in the context of illegal or informal adoption, child trafficking for adoption-like arrangements, and sale/purchase of children outside the CARA framework. The methodology follows a three-tier validation process: data is first entered and validated at the police-station level, then consolidated and re-validated at the state level by the State Crime Records Bureau, and finally checked by NCRB for consistency before publication. Data fields include state and city-wise numbers, victim age group and gender, case status and crime rate per lakh child population. NCRB also separately reports "Human Trafficking" data (collected from Anti-Human Trafficking Units since 2016), which includes victim counts by age and gender and can capture cases of children trafficked for illegal adoption or sale.
Database C: Annual Report, Ministry of Women and Child Development (MoWCD)
Official government document published annually by the Ministry of Women and Child Development. It carries a dedicated chapter on CARA and adoption, restating and contextualising the CARINGS statistics (in-country and inter-country adoption numbers, number of registered PAPs, number of recognised SAAs) alongside narrative updates on policy initiatives — such as the Adoption Regulations, 2022, the introduction of Foster Care and Foster Adoption Modules, and identification drives for adoptable children conducted pursuant to Supreme Court directions. Unlike CARINGS, this is not a live case-tracking system but a periodic compiled report, released once a year as part of the Ministry's overall reporting to Parliament. It is useful for this project mainly as a secondary source that cross-references and narrates the CARINGS numbers in policy language. Link: https://wcd.nic.in (published under "Annual Reports" on the Ministry's website) [Insert screenshot of the relevant chapter/page here, with caption: "Annual Report [year], Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India — https://wcd.nic.in"]
Research that engages with 'Adoption'
An overview of the research that has been conducted on the concept within the Indian justice context, by non-government bodies like academic institutions, research organisations, CSOs, think tanks and other such bodies. A Comparison of Adoptive Parents' Perceptions of their Child's Behavior among Indian Children Adopted to Norway, the United States, and Within Country (Brown & Groza, Child Welfare, 2013) Suzanne Brown (Wayne State University) and Victor Groza (Case Western Reserve University) conducted a cross-national study comparing the psychosocial behaviour of 478 Indian children adopted domestically, to Norway, and to the United States, using the standardised Child Behavior Checklist filled out by adoptive parents. The study's real contribution is that it tests, with actual data, an assumption Indian and international adoption law simply takes for granted: the "subsidiarity principle" under the CRC and Hague Convention, which holds that domestic adoption should always be prioritised over inter-country adoption as being in a child's best interest. Brown and Groza found the opposite — children adopted to Norway and the US were rated by their parents as functioning significantly better behaviourally than children adopted within India, even after controlling for age and gender. This goes well beyond CARA's official framing of domestic adoption as the presumptively safer choice, and instead asks whether that policy preference is actually backed by evidence or is largely values-driven. A limitation worth noting: the data was gathered between 2001–2006, predating the JJ Act, 2015 and CARA's later reforms, and the sample was drawn from families connected to a single Indian placement agency, which limits generalisability. Adoption Laws: Need for Reform (S. Aarthi Anand & Prema Chandra, Economic and Political Weekly, 2002) Written in the aftermath of the 2001 Andhra Pradesh adoption-agency scandal, where several NGOs were accused of trafficking children under the guise of facilitating inter-country adoption, this piece argues that the scandal was symptomatic of deeper flaws in CARA's own guidelines, not just agency wrongdoing. The authors show that CARA's guidelines formally state that the child's welfare is "paramount," but in practice treat in-country adoption as the default preferred option, backed by a mandatory 50% domestic-placement quota and comparatively weaker procedural safeguards (such as a shorter 3-year post-adoption monitoring window and lower reimbursement scrutiny) than inter-country adoption. The authors argue this "socio-cultural milieu" justification for favouring domestic placement is asserted rather than demonstrated, and that lighter scrutiny of in-country adoption, rather than stronger regulation of inter-country adoption is what actually enabled the trafficking racket. This is a useful early academic pushback against the very policy logic that CARA and CARINGS are still built on today.
Gaps and Overlaps Read together, these two pieces bookend a fifteen-year gap in the literature: the EPW piece (2002) is a doctrinal/policy critique arguing that India's preference for domestic adoption is a value judgment presented as child welfare, without evidence behind it; the Brown & Groza study (2013) is close to an empirical test of that exact claim, and its findings lend support to the earlier critique. A gap worth flagging: neither piece engages with the post-2015 JJ Act or CARINGS-era reforms, so there is limited independent (non-CARA) research evaluating whether current safeguards have actually addressed the imbalance both pieces describe.
Challenges
Fragmented legal framework and religious exclusion
India's adoption law operates across two parallel tracks: The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), which applies only to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), which applies to all citizens. Christians and Parsis lack personal adoption statutes entirely and must resort to guardianship under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which does not create a full parent-child relationship. Islamic law does not recognise adoption as understood in statutory law; the All India Muslim Personal Law Board has consistently maintained that Muslim personal law professes the kafala system, under which the child remains the true descendant of biological parents and does not acquire the inheritance rights of an adopted child. While the Supreme Court in Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 1 clarified that the JJ Act is an enabling secular law permitting any person irrespective of religion to adopt, and the Madras High Court as recently as 2025 held that the JJ Act, being a special, secular legislation, has an overriding effect over personal laws and an adopted child will have the same status as a biological child in all matters, confusion at the ground level — among registering authorities and prospective parents persists.
Demand-supply imbalance and the "legally free for adoption" bottleneck
As of July 2025, the number of prospective adoptive parents (PAPs) registered with CARA stood at 36,476, while the number of children in the adoption matrix was not even 10 per cent of that — only 2,785 children were legally free for adoption. The demand-supply gap stands at approximately 13:1. Adoption delays have increased from about one year in 2017 to 3.5 years in 2025, with 34% of available children being above 14 years of age. The classification process is itself slow: a child must be investigated, traced, declared abandoned or surrendered by a Child Welfare Committee, and then entered into the CARINGS portal before they enter the legal adoption pool — a process that can take up to three years and that many institutionalised children never complete at all.
Age and gender preference
Of registered prospective parents, 20,142 sought to adopt a child aged 0–2 years, yet only a few hundred adoptable children of that age are available, creating a structural mismatch between parental preferences and the pool of waiting children. Per CARA data (2024), 60% of adopted children are female and 80% belong to the 0–2 age group, reflecting a strong parental preference for younger children; between 2017–2019, a rise was observed in adoptive parents returning children, with 60% of returned children being girls, 24% having special needs, and many being over six years old — indicating the structural challenge of placing older children and children with disabilities.
Post-adoption disruption and inadequate counselling
Adoption disruptions — where a match breaks down after referral but before the adoption order, or where children are returned thereafter — have been documented without sufficient systemic intervention. Mandatory structured counselling was only introduced by CARA in 2025. India has not historically had a structured pre-adoption programme to prepare prospective parents, and their questions often go unanswered, leaving families without institutional support during one of the most emotionally significant decisions they make.
Intercountry adoption concerns
At the international level, the Hague Convention's subsidiary principle — that intercountry adoption is a last resort when domestic placement has been exhausted — has been difficult to enforce uniformly. Child trafficking and baby-selling in the context of intercountry adoption remain a documented concern in several countries. As of the time of the UN Population Division's landmark 2009 study, only 70 countries had ratified the Hague Convention, and problems in making the various multilateral, regional, and bilateral agreements operational had emerged, with initiatives underway to ensure existing international legal mechanisms respond better to evolving intercountry adoption challenges.
Exclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals
LGBTQ+ individuals and couples face exclusion from formal adoption systems due to traditional family norms and lack of legal recognition; this has led to a rise in informal or illegal adoptions within the queer community. The JJ Act and HAMA both contemplate adoption by single persons and couples, but neither expressly addresses same-sex couples, and no binding judicial or legislative clarification has been issued.
Way Ahead
Towards a uniform adoption law
The most consistently recommended reform is the enactment of a religion-neutral, comprehensive adoption statute applicable to all citizens of India, regardless of personal law affiliation. The Adoption of Children Bill, 1972 sought to achieve this but was withdrawn in 1978. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice (2022) reiterated this need, recommending legislation that is transparent, accountable, less bureaucratic, and applicable to all irrespective of religion — including the LGBTQ+ community — and that avoids the term "illegitimate" in any form.
Accelerating the "legally free for adoption" pipeline
Structural reforms are needed to bring more children into the CARA adoption pool, particularly from Child Care Institutions (CCIs). The Supreme Court's 2023 direction expanding the categories of children eligible to be classified as legally free for adoption — to include Orphan, Abandoned, Surrendered, No Visitation, and Unfit Guardianship — is a meaningful step. Mandatory time-bound integration of CCIs with the CARINGS portal, dedicated adoption officers at the district level, and monthly Child Welfare Committee reviews of children in institutional care can operationalise this direction.
Shifting to a child-centric model
There is a growing consensus among child welfare advocates and CARA itself that adoption policy must shift from a parent-centric to a child-centric approach — prioritising every child's right to a family over the preferences of prospective parents. This includes awareness campaigns to destigmatise adoption of older children and children with special needs, and stricter accountability for prospective parents who withdraw after referral.
Strengthening post-adoption support
The mandatory counselling framework introduced by CARA in 2025, covering pre-adoption, adoption, and post-adoption stages, must be consistently implemented across all Specialised Adoption Agencies (SAAs). Long-term post-placement follow-up — already required under the Adoption Regulations, 2022 — must be monitored with genuine accountability mechanisms.
Harmonising intercountry adoption with the Hague framework
India ratified the Hague Convention in 2003, and CARA functions as India's Central Authority. Further harmonisation is needed: stricter verification that no domestic placement option exists before intercountry referrals are made, stronger accreditation oversight of Authorised Foreign Adoption Agencies, and real-time data sharing with receiving countries to prevent trafficking
Related Terms
Kafala: — An institution under Islamic law that provides for the care and maintenance of a child by a non-biological guardian (kafil), without creating legal parentage, changing the child's name, or conferring inheritance rights from the kafil's estate. It has been recognised by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in Article 20(3) as an alternative care arrangement. Guardianship: A legal relationship conferring the duty of care and authority to act on behalf of a minor, without creating the permanent parent-child bond that adoption does. Governed in India primarily by the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Guardianship typically terminates when the ward attains majority; it does not carry the same succession rights as adoption. Foster Care: A form of temporary family-based care for children who cannot remain with their biological parents, distinct from adoption in that it is not permanent and does not sever the legal ties with the birth family. Regulated in India under the JJ Act, 2015 and the Foster Care Guidelines issued thereunder. Legally Free for Adoption (LFA): A formal status declared by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) under the JJ Act, 2015, certifying that a child is an orphan, abandoned, or surrendered child eligible to be placed in adoption. A child must attain LFA status before being registered in the CARINGS portal and matched with prospective adoptive parents. Child in Need of Care and Protection (CNCP): A statutory category under Section 2(14) of the JJ Act, 2015, describing children who are, inter alia, homeless, abandoned, abused, exploited, or whose parents are incapable of providing proper care. CNCP status is the gateway to CWC proceedings that may eventually result in an LFA declaration. Subsidiarity Principle: The international law principle, enshrined in Article 4(b) of the Hague Convention, 1993, and reflected in India's Adoption Regulations, 2022, that intercountry adoption should be considered only after domestic placement options, including extended family care, foster care, and in-country adoption — have been genuinely explored and exhausted. Surrogacy:A reproductive arrangement distinct from adoption, in which a woman (the surrogate) carries and gives birth to a child on behalf of another individual or couple. Regulated in India by the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. The intended parent(s) may acquire legal parenthood from birth; the process does not involve the child welfare assessment or LFA process applicable to adoption. Parens Patriae: A common law doctrine meaning "parent of the nation," under which the State assumes a duty of protection over persons — particularly children — who cannot protect themselves. The doctrine underlies the jurisdiction of courts and the CWC to act in the best interests of a child in proceedings relating to adoption, guardianship, and child welfare. In Loco Parentis: A Latin phrase meaning "in the place of a parent," describing a person or institution that assumes the rights and responsibilities of a parent with respect to a child, without formal legal adoption. Distinguished from adoption in that it carries no permanent legal effect on parentage or succession rights. Intercountry Adoption: An adoption in which the prospective adoptive parent(s) and the child are habitually resident in different countries, typically requiring compliance with both the domestic laws of the child's country of origin and those of the receiving country, and where both countries are signatories — with the Hague Convention, 1993.
References
Statutes and Regulations 1. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, ss. 5–17. 2. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, s. 8. 3. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (No. 2 of 2016), ss. 2(2), 2(14), 56–73. 4. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021. 5. Adoption Regulations, 2022, G.S.R. 726(E) (Ministry of Women and Child Development / CARA). 6. Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. 7. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. International Instruments 8. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989, Arts. 3, 20, 21, G.A. Res. 44/25. 9. Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, 1993, Arts. 1, 2, 4, 5, 17. 10. European Convention on the Adoption of Children (Revised), Council of Europe, 2008 (CETS No. 202). 11. UN Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, 2000. Case Law 12. Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 1. 13. Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 244 (intercountry adoption safeguards). 14. Sawan Ram v. Kalawati, AIR 1967 SC 1761 (requisites of a valid adoption under Hindu law). 15. In re: Manuel Theodore D'Souza, (2000) 3 Bom CR 536. 16. K. Heerajohn v. Sub-Registrar, Melur East, Madras High Court, 2025 (JJ Act prevails over Muslim personal law in adoption). Reports and Official Publications 17. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (Population Division), Child Adoption: Trends and Policies, ST/ESA/SER.A/292 (United Nations, New York, 2009). 18. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, Review of Guardianship and Adoption Laws (August 2022). 19. Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), Annual Adoption Statistics, 2023–24 and 2024–25 (Ministry of Women and Child Development). 20. Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), Guide to Good Practice No. 1: Implementing and Operating the 1993 Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention.