Authored By: Sharmista Rao
Kirit P Mehta School of Law, NMIMS
ABSTRACT
Adoption serves as a strong method for offering children stable and caring families. In a nation such as India, characterized by its large population and a considerable amount of orphaned, abandoned, or institutionalized children, adoption acts as a vital means for providing their care and inclusion in society. This essay analyzes the legal limitations placed on unmarried men by different Indian laws and regulations, which prevent them from adopting female children under 18 years old. It addresses concerns about child safety and pervasive gender bias while carefully examining the justification for these legislation. In addition, the piece highlights global perspectives, examines moral and societal issues, and advocates for a more customized and inclusive approach. This analysis aims to challenge prevalent gender stereotypes and advance legal reforms that balance the safety of children with the fundamental right to parent.
INTRODUCTION
“Not flesh of my flesh, nor bone of my bone, but still miraculously my own.” – Fleur Conkling Heyliger[1] This quote beautifully captures the heart of adoption. Adoption is officially defined as the process procedure whereby an adult takes on all the rights and obligations of raising a child. Although this definition sets the legal framework, it only barely scratches on the emotional complexity involved.
Adoption is not just a legal transaction but also a deeply emotional process. It signifies accepting a child not linked by blood, but through love and decision. It represents the formation of a family through purpose, not biology. Adoption acts as a significant tool for safeguarding children who are orphaned, abandoned, or residing in institutional settings. It provides them with not just shelter but also the opportunity to feel the safety, affection, and connection of a family. At the same time, it provides adults the chance to create a family of their own through kindness, support, and dedication. At its core, adoption goes beyond merely placing children in homes; it involves forming families founded on acceptance, resilience, and unconditional love.
Adoption in India is a multifaceted process that blends legal formalities with profound emotional significance. It is mainly regulated by the juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015[2] and supported by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA)[3]. In India, adoption prioritizes the best interests of the child above all else. Although the procedure is legally organized and governed to avert abuse and safeguard at-risk children. It also represents the caring principles of empathy, inclusion, and forming families that transcend biological connections. As societal viewpoints gradually change and comprehension of adoption rises, India continues to navigate the delicate balance between legal safeguards and the emotional realities of creating families via adoption.
The guidelines mandate non-discriminatory consideration of all prospective adoptive parents, regardless of gender, marital status, or other personal attributes, with the exception that a single man is prohibited from adopting a girl child[4]. In an effort to protect children during the adoption process, India has imposed such legal constraints on the adoption of girl children by single males. Indian adoption laws, particularly the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015[5] and the CARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority) Guidelines[6], explicitly prohibit single males from adopting girls under the age of 18.
This limitation, though based on worries about child safety, also indicates stereotypical beliefs that single men are naturally unsuitable to raise girls or could pose a danger to them. Such a blanket prohibition fails to recognize the unique abilities, goals, and preparedness of potential adoptive fathers. It not only discriminates based on gender and marital status but also takes away vulnerable girl children’s opportunity for a safe and loving home. In a society where family dynamics are changing and the number of orphaned or abandoned children remains high, it becomes imperative to question whether these restrictions prioritize the child’s welfare or perpetuate archaic patriarchal standards. Despite challenges, single adoptive parents demonstrate positive characteristics and experiences with their adopted children, indicating that single-parent adoption can be a successful alternative for both parents and children in need of homes[7].
Therefore, while the laws governing adoption in India are presented as progressive and compassionate, they remain influenced by entrenched gender biases and societal beliefs that necessitate immediate reassessment.
SINGLE PARENT ADOPTION
Adoption by a single parent questions long-held beliefs about what constitutes a “whole” family. Because of ingrained customs, society frequently sees parenting through the prism of a nuclear family, in which a mother and a father are expected to fulfill separate, gendered responsibilities. However, the realization that single people of any gender are equally capable of giving love, care, and security to children in need of homes has gradually come about as a result of expanding social awareness and changing personal preferences[8].
Adoption by a single parent is a potent illustration of how families and caregiving have changed in modern culture. It represents a change from conventional, nuclear family structures to more inclusive conceptions of childrearing and love[9]. Nevertheless, despite these facts, single parents, especially single men, frequently come under intense scrutiny, mistrust, and even rejection, not because of their own shortcomings but rather because of long-standing prejudices regarding gender roles and safety[10]. Unfounded concerns exist that single men in particular could not be emotionally capable of raising children or might even be dangerous, particularly when adopting girls[11]. In addition to undervaluing men’s capacity for nurturing, this viewpoint restricts opportunities for kids who could otherwise find loving families.
Adoption by a single parent opens the door to a more inclusive conception of parenthood by reframing what family mean[12]s. It urges society to put aside antiquated notions and acknowledge that compassion, stability, and dedication are more important for loving and raising a child than marital status or conventional roles. As more people go this route, it’s critical to change the way the public views single parent adoption not as an exception or last choice, but as a legitimate, empowered way to show family and support.
SINGLE MALES AS ADOPTIVE PARENTS
Single men seeking adoption face unique challenges and skepticism, despite growing acceptance of single adult adopters in some jurisdictions[13]. Men have historically been relegated to the roles of financial suppliers or disciplinarians since society has long been conditioned to equate caregiving with women. In light of this, the idea of a male taking care of a child, running the school, soothing nightmares, and plaiting hair is not only unusual, but also foreign to many. However, it is because of this unfamiliarity that single men’s decision to adopt is both important and strong.
Research has shown that Single men generally have as much to offer adopted children as single women[14]. Many single fathers have shown themselves to be devoted, caring, and emotionally present despite these challenges. They form close emotional ties with their kids and frequently instill in them the virtues of empathy and resilience[15]. Even though the parent-child dynamic may not follow typical models, children of single men usually grow up in secure households with lots of love and attention[16]. These fathers demonstrate that providing care is a human experience that transcends gender.
However, pervasive biases still exist. Single men, particularly those looking to adopt daughters, are regarded with mistrust in many societies. An underlying, frequently spoken anxiety casts doubt on their intentions. Despite the importance of protecting children, these presumptions minimize all males to possible dangers and prevent them from being assessed as unique individuals. This restricts the number of girl children who could otherwise find loving homes and stigmatizes lone male adopters[17]. It perpetuates the antiquated notion that males cannot serve as primary caregivers, despite the fact that innumerable single fathers worldwide have demonstrated the opposite.
LEGAL FRAMEWORKS AND RESTRICTIONS
In India, adoption is primarily governed by two legal frameworks: the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA)[18] and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).Among all personal laws in India, only the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (‘HAMA’) which allows for adoption[19].
According to HAMA, which is applicable to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, a solitary Hindu male is legally allowed to adopt a girl child, as long as he is a minimum of 21 years older than her. This age difference is mandated to uphold a socially appropriate relationship dynamic and to prevent any possible impropriety or perception of it between the adoptive father and the girl child. It reflects the socio-religious context in which the statute was framed.
In comparison, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015[20], a non-religious and uniform law that manages adoption without regard to religion, functions within a more structured national framework via the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA). The Adoption Regulations, 2022[21], issued under the JJ Act, explicitly prohibits single males from adopting girl children. According to Regulation 5(7)[22], “a single male is not eligible to adopt a girl child.” This limitation is mainly based on the concern for child safety and protection, seeking to avert possible dangers linked to abuse or exploitation. Nevertheless, this overarching ban is enforced without regard to the personal qualities, history, or appropriateness of the potential adoptive father.
This division in legal perspective exposes both the forward-thinking and safeguarding purposes of Indian adoption legislation and its ingrained gender biases. While HAMA allows single males to adopt with certain protective measures (like the age difference), the JJ Act takes a more stringent and exclusive approach. Single parent adoption, particularly by single men, has gained acceptance in some jurisdictions, though challenges remain[23]. These strict regulations, although intended to be helpful, could unintentionally narrow the selection of qualified adoptive parents and hinder the opportunities for girl children, particularly older ones to secure permanent homes. It sparks an important discussion regarding universal legal protection versus personalized evaluation of parental suitability, emphasizing the necessity for thoughtful changes in the existing adoption policy framework.
THE LOGIC BEHIND THE BAN
The ban on single men adopting female children under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015[24], as implemented by the Adoption Regulations of 2022[25], is mainly based on concerns regarding child safety and protection. This limitation, although possibly well-meaning, reveals underlying societal fears and beliefs.
One of the primary concerns behind this prohibition is the susceptibility of girl children to sexual assault and exploitation in India[26]. Lawmakers and policy makers have traditionally voiced worries that placing a girl child with a lone male adoptive parent could heighten the risk of danger, especially in private, unsupervised home settings. Considering India’s wider context of child abuse incidents and the country’s continuing initiatives to enhance child protection legislation, the limitation seems to arise from a wish to prioritize safety[27].
Nonetheless, this logic while aiming to be protective can also be too broad and may end up being biased. By assuming that every single man could be a potential threat, the law unintentionally merges possibility with likelihood and suspicion with assurance. It does not recognize that abuse can happen in all family structures, including traditional nuclear families, and that the parent’s gender or marital status is not a dependable indicator of abusive conduct.
Furthermore, a common social bias links nurturing and caregiving more naturally to women, or at least to couples, particularly those in conventional heterosexual marriages. The depiction of a man nurturing a girl often contradicts traditional gender expectations, which anticipate that men will act as providers instead of main caregivers. This inherent bias results in a legal system that treats single men with suspicion, regardless of their individual capacity to foster a secure and supportive environment[28].
Conventional gender stereotypes that portray men primarily as guardians or financial providers rather than emotional nurturers are frequently challenged by the societal image of a guy taking care of a young girl. The fact that an unmarried man can provide the same degree of love, security, and care as any other parent may go unnoticed because of these deeply rooted cultural beliefs[29]. As a result, when an unmarried guy shows interest in adopting a daughter, he is often rejected on the basis of stereotypes rather than his actual character, goals, convictions, and ability to raise a loving family.
Because society still views girls as especially weak or in need of protection, this distrust is heightened when it comes to them.Although there may be a sincere desire to protect children, these worries run the risk of erecting obstacles for people who are perfectly capable of providing care and security just because they don’t fit the traditional definition of what a “family” should be. In the process, we can unintentionally deny countless children the chance to grow up in loving, supporting homes based only on the identities of people who are willing to love them.
Excluding unmarried men from adopting girls may be justified out of caution, but it really reveals underlying society prejudices rather than impartial evaluations of individual aptitude. The rule runs the risk of reinforcing negative stereotypes and ignoring the true potential of devoted, caring fathers by lumping all unmarried males together. Regardless of a prospective parent’s gender or marital status, a successful adoption system focused on children should transcend gender preconceptions and assess them based on their capacity to create safe, caring, and supportive surroundings.
CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GENDER EQUALITY AND ADOPTION
The Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights that ensure equality, dignity, and personal freedom for every citizen. Although adoption laws focus on prioritizing child safety, they need to be assessed against constitutional requirements to confirm they do not infringe on individual rights through arbitrary or stereotypical classifications.
Entitlement to Equality (Article 14)[30]
Article 14 guarantees equality under the law and equal legal protection within India’s territory. The ban on single men adopting female children under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015[31], raises issues of unconstitutional bias based solely on gender and marital status. A total prohibition assumes possible harm without assessing individual merit, thus contravening the principle of reasonable classification set forth in Article 14. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[32], the Supreme Court determined that laws should be evaluated based on the progressive interpretation of equality and personal dignity. The limitation placed on single men seems constitutionally questionable since it strengthens gender stereotypes and obstructs equal chances for parenting.
Non-Discrimination (Article 15)
Article 15(1) forbids the State from engaging in discrimination based on sex. Even though Article 15(3) permits special measures for women and children, these provisions should be protective rather than exclusionary. Implementing a total ban on single men adopting girls, instead of applying thorough background checks or assessments, could veer into unfair discrimination, implying that all men pose a potential danger, a stereotype not backed by personal evaluation. This compromises the constitutional goal of attaining true equality[33].
Right to Life and Individual Freedom (Article 21)[34]
Article 21 ensures the right to life and personal freedom, which has been legally broadened to encompass the rights to dignity, privacy, and family life. Refusing adoption based only on gendered beliefs violates this personal freedom. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the right to life under Article 21 is not merely the right to exist, but the right to live with dignity and autonomy.
COMPARISON
Although many Western countries and India have comparable adoption laws designed to safeguard the welfare of the child, their approaches significantly differ, especially regarding gender-specific restrictions and the adoption process for single parents. The primary laws governing adoption in India are the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA)[35] and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act)[36]. A deeply rooted societal apprehension regarding males as caregivers is evident in the Adoption Regulations, 2022, established under the JJ Act[37], which prohibits unmarried men from adopting female infants. This occurs even though the JJ Act allows adoption without regard to religion and maintains a gender-neutral stance in several aspects. This blanket ban is rationalized by concerns over child safety, especially the risk of abuse, yet it may also perpetuate gender stereotypes and overlook the qualifications of individual applicants.
In progressive adoption systems globally, including the US, UK, and Canada, an applicant’s capacity to offer a child a stable, secure, and loving environment takes precedence over their marital status or gender in determining their adoption eligibility. These systems prioritize comprehensive background checks, home assessments, and the emotional and financial readiness of prospective parents over social assumptions or prejudices. Conversely, India’s prohibition on single men adopting girl children may stem from safety issues, yet it also seems to signifies a broader cultural skepticism towards men in caregiving roles.
In the United States, adoption is regulated at the state level, and no federal or state law explicitly bars single men from adopting girls. Applicants are evaluated based on comprehensive background checks, home studies, and psychological preparedness rather than marital status or gender[38]. Similarly, the United Kingdom’s Adoption and Children Act 2002[39] allows any individual aged 21 or older to adopt, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or marital status, as long as they can provide a safe and supportive environment. Canada adopts a province-specific approach, but all provinces follow the same core principles evaluating adoptive parents based on suitability, stability, and capacity to care for the child, not on gender or marital status[40].
This contrast highlights that while India’s adoption laws are progressive in theory, they remain limited by conservative cultural assumptions in practice. The legal restriction on single men adopting girls undermines gender equality and contradicts the broader principle that each case should be evaluated on its own facts. Conversely, Western legal systems increasingly recognize that caregiving capabilities are not determined by gender, and thus, adopt more inclusive standards. For India to move forward, its adoption laws must evolve from protectionist overreach to nuanced judgment, where every potential parent is assessed with fairness, compassion, and due diligence.
BALANCING CHILD PROTECTION WITH EQUAL RIGHTS
Safeguarding children, especially girls, from mistreatment and exploitation is clearly a fundamental duty within any adoption system. However, ensuring their safety must not compromise fairness or promote discriminatory actions. Legislation that narrows opportunities based on sweeping assumptions could potentially be more detrimental than beneficial. Instead, a child-centered, rights-based approach needs to carefully balance protecting children at risk with upholding the core values of equality and nondiscrimination.
A more equitable approach would be supported by thorough and consistent evaluation processes for all single individuals considering adoption, regardless of their gender. This involves background checks, psychiatric testing, personal references, and detailed house assessments. These methods can more effectively screen out unsuitable candidates, as they don’t rely on assumptions about a candidate’s gender or marital status.
Additionally, all post-adoption supervision requires enhancement, especially for single-parent adoptions. Through routine home visits and welfare evaluations, qualified social workers can ensure that the child’s welfare is maintained within a safe and supportive setting.
Crucially, the legal system should provide clear appeal procedures for adoption requests denied based only on gender. This would enable people to question choices that may be based more on antiquated social prejudices than on an unbiased assessment of their parenting skills.
Instead of a general ban, children and prospective parents would benefit more from a customized approach. Not all males are dangerous, and not all women ensure safety. Recognizing each applicant’s individuality and specific ability to provide care is essential to updating India’s adoption system. A comprehensive and fair legal framework would uphold the right of every individual to form a family, irrespective of gender or marital status, while also enhancing child protection.
CONCLUSION
This complete ban truly reflects a significant lack of trust in men, especially those who are unmarried, to provide the same level of safety, emotional support, and care that society typically attributes to women or heterosexual partnerships. While protecting vulnerable children should undoubtedly be the primary goal of any adoption policy, justice, dignity, and individual rights must never be sacrificed for the sake of safety. Because the law is punishing men based on their gender rather than their actions or shortcomings, it perpetuates stereotypes that portray men as fundamentally less competent or even dangerous in caring roles.
Should single men be entirely prevented from adopting girls, the number of adoptions in India may decline. This approach disregards evolving family arrangements, the increasing involvement of men in caring responsibilities, and changing social perceptions. By stopping many capable and kind people from becoming parents and by depriving orphaned or abandoned girls of the opportunity to grow up in secure and supportive surroundings, this limitation undermines the very purpose of child welfare.
India’s existing legal framework reveals an obsolete viewpoint on family structures and raising children. It fails to keep pace with the increasing prevalence of single fathers, gender-neutral approaches to parenting, and men’s heightened participation in both emotional and household responsibilities. Fundamentally, by associating emotional nurturing with femininity and risk-taking with masculinity, this constraint strengthens negative perceptions concerning what it means to be a man. It disregards the fundamental tenets of fairness and personal liberty, consequently missing the chance to foster broader acceptance among a diverse group of informed and dedicated caregivers.
India’s adoption legislation requires revision to incorporate a more encompassing and realistic understanding of effective parenthood. Should authorities shift from implementing blanket restrictions to assessing circumstances on a case-by-case basis, they could safeguard children while acknowledging every individual’s capacity to provide care. Empathy, fairness, and confidence in people’s capability to safeguard, nurture, and assist others, irrespective of gender, ought to form the bedrock of adoption statutes. Affection, encouragement, and safety are not ensured by an individual’s sex or marital condition. Rather, they stem from the principles, ambitions, and commitment of those who elect to raise children with integrity and diligence.
REFERENCE(S):
[1] Fleur Conkling Heyliger, Not Flesh of My Flesh, available at https://lifetimechristianadoption.com/2025/01/05/adoption-poetry/ (last visited May 20, 2025)
[2] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
[3] Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), Adoption Regulations 2022, (CARA)
[4] Shefali Anand, Despite a Favourable Law, Why Do Single Women and Men Struggle to Adopt a Child in India, Econ. Times (Aug. 10, 2019), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/despite-a-favourable-law-why-do-single-women-and-men-struggle-to-adopt-a-child-in-india/articleshow/70621618.cms.
[5] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, supra note 2.
[6] CARA, Adoption Regulations, supra note 3.
[7] Victor Groze, Adoption and Single Parents: A Review, 70 Child Welfare 321 (1991).
[8] Mona Rathee, Single Parenting and Its Impact on Child’s Development, 19 Soc. Change 83 (2023).
[9] Veena Naregal, Challenging Family Stereotypes, GULF NEWS (Aug. 28, 2019), https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/challenging-family-stereotypes -1.652318.
[10] Piyush Gupta & Payal Gupta, Single Parent Adoption: An Indian Perspective, 60 Indian Pediatr. 939 (2023)
[11] Victor Groze, Adoption and Single Parent, supra note 7
[12] Veena Naregal, Challenging Family Stereotypes, supra note 9
[13] Mary V. Seeman, Single Men Seeking Adoption, 8 World J. Psychiatry 83 (2018), https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v8.i3.83.
[14] id
[15] Michael Lamb, The Role of the Father in Child Development (5th ed. 2010)
[16] id
[17] Centre for Social Research, Gender Bias in Adoption Laws in India 7–9 (2021).
[18] The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, No. 78 of 1956, INDIA CODE (1956), § 11.
[19] Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Model Code on Indian Family Law (2023).
[20] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, supra note 2.
[21] CARA, Adoption Regulations, supra note 3.
[22] Central Adoption Resource Authority Regulations, reg. 5(7) (2017).
[23] Mary V. Seeman, Single Men Seeking Adoption, supra note 12.
[24] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, supra note 2.
[25] CARA, Adoption Regulations, supra note 3.
[26] Rakhi Dandona et al., Prevalence of Child Sexual Abuse in India: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study, The Lancet Reg’l Health – Southeast Asia, Jan. 2025, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lansea/article/PIIS2772-3682(23)00239-1/fulltext
[27] Ministry of Women & Child Development, Study on Child Abuse: India 2007, at 10–12 (2007), https://aarambhindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/MWCD-Child-Abuse-Report.pdf.
[28] Debbie Budlender, Men and Work in the Context of Care, U.N. Res. Inst. for Soc. Dev., at 15–18 (2011), https://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/(httpPublications)/2B1BD3A38B89B5C7C1257912004D464C .
[29] Michael E. Lamb, The Role of the Father in Child Development 8–12 (5th ed. 2010).
[30] India Const. art. 14.
[31] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, supra note 2.
[32] Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1
[33] India Const. art. 15(1), 15(3).
[34] India Const. art. 21.
[35] The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, supra note 16.
[36] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, supra note 2.
[37] Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), Adoption Regulations 2022, (CARA)
[38] Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.).
[39] Adoption and Children Act 2002, c. 38, §§ 49–50 (UK)
[40] Child, Youth and Family Services Act, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 (Can.).
