Adoption And The Uniform Civil Code
- IJLLR Journal
- Jul 19
- 2 min read
Sudhishna Bose, K.G. Harini & Muktaa Patil, Jindal Global Law School
ABSTRACT
India’s adoption regime is fragmented between religion-specific personal laws and secular statutes, producing unequal rights and procedural incoherence in terms of child welfare. This paper critically appraises the statutory framework governing adoption, principally the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and identifies constitutional and practical deficiencies of the pluralistic system. It situates adoption within the Uniform Civil Code debate, contending that a unified adoption statute would further equality, gender justice, and the best interests of the child, consistent with Articles 14, 15, 21, and 44 of the Constitution. The paper scrutinises the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code, 2024, noting its omission of comprehensive adoption and guardianship provisions and arguing that this gap undermines substantive uniformity and perpetuates reliance on fragmented central laws. Drawing on comparative examples from France and Portugal, it concludes that any national UCC should adopt a comprehensive, secular, child‐centric adoption regime that ensures equal legal recognition for all adoptive families while upholding constitutional values and child welfare.
Adoption in India has had a long standing history, with ancient Hindu texts like the Manusmriti prescribing rituals for the adoption of a male child, as a last resort for continuing the family line. There existed barriers to this process, such as gender of the child (there exist no specific provisions for the adoption of girls as it was believed that the female child cannot liberate the souls of the deceased).
During the British colonial rule in India, adoption laws underwent significant changes. The laws were based on pre-existing frameworks such as the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools of law that imposed restrictions on eligibility of who could adopt. Under these laws, a man with a natural or adopted son, grandson, or great-grandson was prohibited from adoption. Simultaneous adoption of multiple individuals was also deemed invalid.
Landmark judgments and legislative acts further expanded this legal landscape. The Indian Majority Act, 1875, for example, effected unto law the age at which a person could adopt or authorize adoption. The Privy Council, through decisions like Jamoona vs. Bamasoondri, provided insights into the legal complexities surrounding adoption, including the authority of minors to adopt.
