Customary Rituals Alone Cannot Complete the Adoption Procedure, Unless Followed by the Procedure: HC

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court dismissed a petition filed by adoptive parents seeking the custody of a child who they had adopted after a customary ritual, but not through the legal process. The court made it clear that customary adoption rituals or ‘Datha Homum’ were legally invalid. Any adoption procedure was invalid if it did not follow the Central government’s CARA (Central Adoptionl Resource Authority) guidelines as mandated under the Juvenile Justice Act or Adoption Act.

Justice T. Madhavi Devi was dealing with a petition which had challenged the women and child welfare (WCD) department taking custody of his adopted daughter, aged about two years, and placing her in a child protection centre (CPC). The petitioner sought a direction to hand over the custody of the child to him and his wife.

Following the orders, the child will be remain in the child protection centre till the authorities allow her adoption through CARA.

The petitioner contended that they had been childlessness after marriage in 2014 and had approached the district collector for adoption of a child. While the process was pending, they allegedly received a one-month-old girl child from one Nakka Yadagiri in May 2023 and adopted her after performing customary adoption rituals.

The petitioner claimed that the child was raised with care and affection and her health improved significantly. He said the child was forcibly taken away by the police in June 2025 without notice or due process and placed before the child welfare committee and the couple was arrayed as accused in a criminal case involving allegations of child-trafficking.

The authorities submitted that Yadagiri was involved in an organised child-trafficking racket and had sold children for monetary consideration. The authorities contended that the petitioner and his wife bought the infant for `6 lakh, and that the adoption was not conducted in accordance with the law. The child was taken into protective custody in the interest of her welfare and was being cared for in a government-run institution.

The court noted that Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 expressly prohibited the sale or purchase of children and prescribed penal consequences. The court said the petitioner and his wife may have taken good care of the child but compassion or emotional bonding could not override statutory mandates. The adoption process followed by the petitioner was found to be illegal and contrary to CARA guidelines.

The court upheld the statutory framework governing adoption and reaffirmed that any deviation from the prescribed legal procedure amounted to illegality and dismissed the request of the petitioner.

The High Court also said that the Supreme Court's direction in the case of ‘Dasari Anil Kumar and another’ could not be used as a precedent. In that case, the apex court had directed that the child be handed over to the ‘adopted’ parents, even when the legality of the adoption is in question. The High Court said that the Supreme Court in that case had used its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Anil Kumar and three others had filed appeals before the Supreme Court challenging similar orders issued by the Telangana High Court. All of them were adoptive parents from Telangana challenging the action of the Medipally police in taking the custody of their minor children and handing them over to the child welfare project director and Integrated Child Protection Services, Sishuvihar, Hyderabad, on the basis of an FIR for alleged child traffic.

The Supreme Court bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan had on August 12, 2025, directed the authorities to hand the children over to the adoptive parents on the ground of best interest of the children as they had been with their adoptive parents for up to three years. The apex court also said that the order would not come in the way of any other proceeding that has been initiated by the authorities and that the decision shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case.

Citing this, Justice Madhavi Devi said that the High Court could not take the apex court`s orders as precedent; moreover, in the instant case the child was not adopted from the natural parents and were brought from a child-trafficking offender. The High Court pointed out that the petitioner couple had already made an application to the CARA for adoption and would have to wait for their turn. The court was not inclined to give directions to the authorities to refer the petitioner’s matter to CARA to be up taken out of turn. The court said that would amount to, and would lead to, a prescription for illegal adoptions. It would also encourage child trafficking in the country.