Case Title: The Temple of Healing v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1950
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra
Date of Judgment: November 20, 2023
I. Introduction
The Supreme Court ruling in The Temple of Healing v. Union of India is a landmark in the jurisprudence relating to adoption, child welfare, and the intersection of religious autonomy with statutory compliance. The case questions the constitutionality and legality of religious bodies carrying out adoptions on their own, independent of the statutory mechanism provided under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter “JJ Act”) and its related Adoption Regulations, 2017. The judgment categorically reaffirms that although freedom of religion and propagation of religion is constitutionally guaranteed, such freedoms are not unfettered and have to give way to the best interests of the child as well as to the state’s duty to guarantee due process in cases related to child care and protection.
II. Issues Raised
Whether religious or charitable organizations are legally permitted to enable child adoptions without registration as Specialized Adoption Agencies (SAAs) under the JJ Act and against the Adoption Regulations, 2017?
Whether protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution applies to religious organizations performing adoptions as part of their religious or philanthropic traditions?
Whether the adoptions performed by The Temple of Healing constituted a violation of the procedural guarantees prescribed under the JJ Act, thus infringing the right of life and dignity of the children concerned under Article 21 of the Constitution?
What is the legal difference between adoptions made under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) and those made under the JJ Act, and how does it impact the legality of institutionally facilitated adoptions?
Whether or not the failure to have adequate SAAs all over the country amounts to a systemic failure that leads to informal and unregulated adoptions, and what steps are required as a remedy.
III. Rule
A. Statutory and Constitutional Provisions
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015:
Section 2(3) and 2(14): Have defined “adoption” and “child in need of care and protection”.
Chapter VIII: Enacts the legal process for adoption of orphaned, abandoned, and surrendered children.
Section 66–68: Enacts the legal requirement for SAAs and their regulatory control.
Adoption Regulations, 2017:
Regulation 4: Prescribes the eligibility criteria for adoptive parents.
Regulation 12–15: Describes the procedure for matching, placement, and post-adoption follow-up.
Regulation 23–24: Enforce charges against SAAs and provide penalties against unauthorized adoption practice.
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA):
Section 6: Tests for a valid adoption.
Section 7–11: Lays down statutory requirements and procedural standards.
Constitution of India:
Article 21: Guarantees life and personal liberty, judicially including child welfare and dignified living.
Articles 25 and 26: Safeguards religious freedom subject to public order, morality, and health.
B. Judicial Precedents Relevant
Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 244: The landmark case establishing principles for inter-country adoptions, with a focus on state regulation and judicial review.
Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 1: Reaffirmed that adoption is a secular process and cannot be withheld based on personal law where a secular law is applicable.
Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, (1999) 2 SCC 228: Made it clear that statutory rights should be construed harmoniously with constitutional assurances.
IV. Application
A. Factual Matrix
The Temple of Healing is a charitable-religious institution which for a number of years had an informal process allowing for adoptions of abandoned and destitute wards in their custody. Such adoptions, which were done under religious reasons, did not fit the procedural or institutional requirements set forth under the JJ Act or Adoption Regulations. The institution never registered as a Specialized Adoption Agency nor arranged with the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), the legal nodal body for adoption in India.
The Union of India, by and through CARA and Ministry of Women and Child Development, questioned the legality of such adoptions on grounds that they jeopardized the safety of children, violated statutory standards, and failed to be transparent and accountable in institutional terms.
B. Petitioner’s Contentions
The Temple of Healing raised a number of defenses:
Religious Protection: It argued that its activities were an integral part of its religious and spiritual duties, safeguarded by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
Philanthropic Motive: Highlighted that humanitarian intent, and not malice or profit, informed the adoption practices of the institution.
Reliance on HAMA: Maintained that adoptions were legal according to the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, since a majority of the adoptive parents were Hindu.
Operational Challenges: Claimed that bureaucratic and regulatory restrictions typically deterred or hindered legitimate adoptions through the CARA system, with the result that informal intervention became necessary.
C. Respondent’s Submissions
The Union of India, who were the opposition, highlighted the following facts:
Regulatory Mandate: Contended that the JJ Act is a codal complete governing adoption and supersedes all informal or parallel procedures.
Secular Character of Child Welfare: Asserted that the adoption is a secular legal process and cannot be directed by religious beliefs alone.
Child Rights Prioritized: Expresses serious doubts regarding the absence of supervision, screening, and accountability in informal adoptions undertaken by the Temple, placing children at risk of possible exploitation.
HAMA’s Inapplicability to Institutions: Emphasized that HAMA regulates adoptions by individual parties and not by or through institutions, hence making institutional facilitation under HAMA ultra vires.
D. Judicial Reasoning
The Court accepted the benevolent intent of the petitioner but upheld that institutional largesse cannot override compliance with the statute. It reasserted that adoption is not a matter of private agreement but a legal process involving the transfer of the child’s custody and thus mandates strong safeguards. The Court reiterated that:
All child adoptions shall be governed by the JJ Act and Adoption Regulations.
Religious freedom cannot operate to the detriment of a child’s right to proper legal and social protection.
Institutions, unlike individuals, must function within a regulated framework when dealing with vulnerable populations.
Procedural safeguards such as home studies, matching protocols, and post-adoption follow-up ensure child security and long-term welfare, and are not optional.
V. Judgment
The Court ruled as follows:
Illegal Adoptions: Held that adoptions arranged by The Temple of Healing were illegal since they were carried out outside the statutory framework.
Pre-eminence of the JJ Act: Reiterated that the JJ Act and Adoption Regulations are the sole legal regime governing institutional adoptions in India.
Non-Applicability of HAMA to Institutions: Clarified that HAMA cannot be invoked by institutions or third parties to justify adoptions arranged on their behalf.
Rejection of Religious Exemption: Declared that Articles 25 and 26 cannot be used to bypass child welfare legislation serving a compelling public interest.
Institutional Accountability: Ordered CARA and state governments to take measures to detect all such informal adoptions and initiate corrective action.
Directive to States: Required every district to have at least one functional SAA by January 31, 2024, and ordered the state governments to submit compliance reports.
Systemic Reforms: Suggested increased training, inspection, and audit procedures for institutions dealing with children.
The ruling provides a strong endorsement of the primacy of statutory process in adoption. The Court appropriately emphasized that religious organizations cannot operate in isolation when it comes to children—perhaps the most vulnerable portion of society. Procedural strictness is not red tape but constitutional imperative grounded in the doctrine of parens patriae.
The Court’s recourse to Article 21 to encapsulate child rights manifests a developed constitutional morality in conformity with international covenants like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which India is a signatory. The dismissal of the petitioner’s recourse to Articles 25 and 26 serves to underwrite that child welfare forms a valid constitutional restraint upon religious liberties.
While rendering judgment, however, the ruling does leave unresolved crucial issues of policy development to come. Ought the state formulate a process to include religious organizations as stakeholders within CARA’s regulatory fold by way of licensing or certification? May these be enabled through training and orientation in law so that they might become partners in legitimate adoption?
VII. Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in The Temple of Healing v. Union of India categorically establishes the sanctity of legal norms in the adoption process. It reiterates the constitutional principle that no religious or other freedom can override a child’s right to protection, dignity, and legal adoption.
By imposing regulatory compliance and pointing out systemic failures in the operation of SAAs, the Court has indicated the imperative of immediate reforms. It is a call to stronger vigilance, legal literacy, and institutional integrity in child protection. Religious organizations, as benevolent as they may be, are required to reconcile their actions with the secular rule of law where they get involved in the lives of India’s children. This judgment is a solid foundation on which future jurisprudence can strike a balance between religious liberty and the constitutional mandate of child protection and procedural due process.
Name : Agneesh Ray
College : Institute of law, Nirma University