Transfer Of Adoption Powers To District Magistrates Valid: Bombay High Court Upholds 2021 Juvenile Justice Act Amendment

 We have noted that though the Bombay High Court had granted stay to the transfer of pending adoption matters to the District Magistrate, by directing that ongoing cases shall continue in the Court, in other States the Amendment of 2021 has come into force and has yielded success. In light of the aforesaid discussion, since we do not find any merit and substance in the challenge raised by the Petitioners, both the Petitions stand dismissed. Pending Interim Applications also stand disposed of. At the same time, we vacate the interim order dated 10/01/2023 and permit the matters to be dealt with by the

District Magistrate. We must also clarify that in the interregnum the orders which are passed by the Court in adoption matters shall be treated as legally and validly passed. {Para 28}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1085 OF 2023

Nisha Pradeep Pandya alias Nisha Amit Gor & Anr.  V/S  Union of India & Ors.

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ

DATE : 4th MAY 2026

JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J) :

Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:11417-DB

Print Page

Bombay High Court Orders Stay On Transfer of Adoption Cases To District Magistrates.

  While considering interim relief, we must bear in mind the

primary objective which is the interest of the children and infants

who are to be adopted whether these are domestic or foreign

adoptions. The concerns of the adoptive parents are also involved.

In considering ad-interim relief, we have to bear in mind the

interests of the minors who are put up for adoption and the interests

of the adopted parents. Presently, the adoptions are being handled

by Single Judges of this Court. This has continued for a very long

period of time and nothing is shown to us to indicate why for a

limited period of time of about four weeks this should not be

continued until we finally hear the challenge. No prejudice will be

caused to any party if the existing system continues. On the

contrary, the primary interest would be protected. Moreover, we are

granting interim relief only until the next date and not indefinitely for a long period of time. We are not impressed by the arguments of delays for disposals because at least in this High Court, the the adoptions jurisdiction is one in which there is no backlog at all. Adjournments are almost never requested or ordered and disposals take place on a weekly basis. {Para 2}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) 598 OF 2023

IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 32065 OF 2022

Aadil Ebrahim & Anr ...Applicant

In the mater between

Nisha Pradeep Pandya alias Nisha Amit Gor & Anr Vs Union of India & Ors 

CORAM G.S. Patel &

S.G. Dige, JJ.

DATED: 10th January 2023

Print Page

Whether prosecution U/S 3 of Arms Act is tenable without sanction of district magistrate?

Shri   R.H.   Raolani,   advocate   for   the   appellant   No.1   has
submitted that the Sessions Court has committed an error in convicting the
appellant No.1 for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959, overlooking the provisions of Section 39 of the Arms Act
which lay down that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in
respect of any offence under Section 3 without the previous sanction of the
District Magistrate.  In support of his submission, the learned advocate has
relied on the judgment given in the case of  Kamalsingh Vs. State of Mah.,
reported in 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 218.  

It is undisputed that the prosecution is launched against the
appellant No.1 for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959 without there being sanction of the District Magistrate.  The
learned A.P.P. has not been able to counter the submission made on behalf of
the appellant No.1  relying on the provisions of Section 39 of the Arms Act.
In the facts of the case, it has to be held that the conviction of the appellant
No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the
Arms Act is unsustainable and it has to be set aside.  
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 27  OF 2000
Viransingh @ Simansingh S/o.
Attarsingh Tomar,
 V
State of Maharashtra,

               CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
               DATED   : MAY 11, 2016.
Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)2616

Print Page