Child Welfare Committee's Custody Assumption Quashed as Child Does Not Qualify as 'In Need of Care and Protection' under Juvenile Justice Act; Petitioners Advised to Seek Legal Adoption Declaration
In a significant judgment delivered on September 17, 2026, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Krishna Rao, ruled in favor of Smt. Aparna Das and another petitioner, directing the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to return custody of a minor child, Amit Das, to the petitioners. The court held that the child, who has been in the care of the petitioners since birth, does not fall within the definition of "children in need of care and protection" under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, thereby invalidating the CWC's assumption of custody.
The case arose when the biological parents voluntarily handed over the child, born prematurely in February 2023, to the petitioners through a notarized but unregistered adoption deed. The petitioners had been caring for the child since birth, but upon seeking a birth certificate to enroll the child in school, they were directed by hospital authorities to approach the CWC. Subsequent to the petitioners' approach, the CWC took the child into custody and has since not returned the child despite the petitioners' requests.
The petitioners contended that there were no allegations of abuse, neglect, or harm against them and that the child's welfare was best served in their custody, emphasizing the emotional bond developed over three years. They argued that procedural irregularities in adoption formalities should not override the child's settled caregiving environment.
The State, represented by the government counsel, asserted the necessity of strict adherence to the statutory adoption process as per the Juvenile Justice Act and the Adoption Regulations, 2022, emphasizing that private arrangements without following prescribed procedures hold no legal validity. The State maintained that the CWC acted within its authority to protect the child's welfare.
However, the court observed that the child does not qualify as a "child in need of care and protection" because he is neither an orphan nor abandoned, nor was there any evidence of unfitness or incapacity on the part of the biological parents. The court referred to the detailed provisions of Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice Act, which enumerates specific conditions that define children in need of care and protection, none of which applied to the present case.
Relying on Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which enshrines the principles of best interest, family responsibility, safety, and repatriation, the court underscored that the paramount consideration must be the child's welfare rather than procedural technicalities. The court ruled that the CWC's action of taking custody of the child was contrary to law and directed the committee to return custody to the petitioners by September 18, 2026.
Further, the court instructed the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Committee to monitor the child's welfare through quarterly reports and inspections by a Child Welfare Expert. The petitioners were also advised to initiate appropriate legal proceedings before a competent court for formal declaration of adoption to regularize their status as adoptive parents.
This judgment clarifies the limited scope of the CWC's jurisdiction under the Juvenile Justice Act, emphasizing that only children meeting the statutory criteria of being in need of care and protection fall under its purview. It also highlights the judiciary's commitment to prioritizing the child's best interests and family bonds over procedural lapses in adoption formalities.
Bottom Line:
Adoption - Adoption deed not registered; child not falling under the definition of "children in need of care and protection" under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Child Welfare Committee directed to return custody of the child to petitioners as per principles of best interest, family responsibility, and safety of the child.
Statutory provision(s):
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Sections 2(14), 3, 56, 57, 58; Adoption Regulations, 2022; Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
Smt. Aparna Das v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2980497
