Adopted Child Takes Caste of Adoptive Parents When Biological Parents Unknown: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that where the biological parents of an adopted child are unknown and the adoption has been validly carried out through a court order, the caste of the adopted child must be recognised as that of the adoptive parents, and denial of caste validity in such circumstances would defeat the very legal effect of adoption.

A Division Bench of Justices M S Karnik and S M Modak allowed a writ petition filed by Mrs Geeta Dattatray Achari and set aside orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune, which had cancelled and upheld the cancellation of the caste certificate issued to her adopted son, Om Dattatray Achari.

The case arose from the adoption of a male child who had been abandoned at birth and whose biological parents were not known.

Mrs Achari and her husband had approached the District Court at Pune under the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000, seeking to adopt the child.

By an order dated 22.08.2014, the District Court allowed the application, declared the date and place of birth of the child, formally recognised the petitioners as the adoptive parents, and directed the Pune Municipal Corporation to issue a birth certificate reflecting them as the parents.

The court also imposed conditions relating to insurance, recurring deposits, and periodic progress reports, all of which are part of the statutory framework governing adoptions of abandoned children.

Mrs Achari belongs to the Special Backward Category. On her application, the Deputy Collector, Pune, issued a caste certificate in favour of her adopted son on 19.06.2017. Subsequently, a complaint was made by an unknown person alleging that the caste certificate had been obtained on the basis of false documents. Following an enquiry, the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelled the caste certificate by an order dated 21.02.2018.

An appeal filed before the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune, was dismissed on 31.12.2018, leading to the present writ petition before the High Court.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that once a valid adoption had taken place and the biological parents were unknown, the caste of the adopted child necessarily followed that of the adoptive parents. Reliance was placed on earlier decisions of the Bombay High Court as well as the legal effect of adoption under statutory law.

The State, on the other hand, argued that the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate Act, 2000 did not expressly provide for issuance of caste certificates to adopted children.

The Bench examined the scheme of the 2000 Act and the Rules framed under it, including Rule 4 of the 2012 Rules, which prescribes the procedure for obtaining caste certificates and recognises situations where standard documentary proof may not be available. The Court noted that neither the Act nor the Rules specifically addressed the situation of an adopted child whose biological parents are unknown.

The central question before the Court was whether an adoption order passed by a competent court and the corresponding entry in the birth register could be treated as sufficient proof to establish the caste of the adopted child.

In addressing this issue, the Bench relied on its earlier decision in Dr Sonal Pratapsingh Vahanwala v Deputy District Collector and Others, which had considered the effect of adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, as well as the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rameshbhai Dabbhai Naika v State of Gujarat.

The Court observed that these principles were equally applicable to adoptions carried out under the Juvenile Justice framework.

The Bench placed particular emphasis on the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which was in force at the time of the adoption. It noted that Section 41 of the Act provided for adoption of orphaned and abandoned children through court orders, and that the definition of adoption, introduced by the 2006 amendment, clearly stated that adoption permanently separates the child from the biological parents and makes the child the legitimate child of the adoptive parents, with all rights, privileges, and responsibilities attached to that relationship.

The Court observed that although the 2000 Act did not explicitly spell out the effect of adoption in the same terms as the later 2015 Act, the legislative intent was clear.

The judgment recorded that adoption operates through a legal fiction that fully integrates the child into the adoptive family.

The Bench noted that failure to recognise this effect would leave the child’s legal status uncertain and undermine the rehabilitative purpose of the Juvenile Justice legislation.

The Court held that the Scrutiny Committee had failed to consider the legal consequences of adoption under the Juvenile Justice Act and had approached the issue in an unduly narrow manner. It observed that when the natural parents and their caste are unknown, and a valid adoption has taken place through judicial process, the adopted child must be accorded the same caste status as the adoptive parents.

The Bench concluded that the petitioner’s adopted son was entitled to be recognised as belonging to the Special Backward Category.

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Caste Scrutiny Committee and directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue a caste validity certificate to Om Dattatray Achari within four weeks.

Case Title: Mrs Geeta Dattatray Achari v State of Maharashtra and Others

Bench: Justices M S Karnik and S M Modak

Date of Judgment: 29.01.2026