Gur Kaur (Minor) and Ors.\u00a0 \u200b {Petitioners }\u00a0 <\/b>Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/b>Union of India & Anr.\u00a0 {Respondents}<\/b><\/p>\n
W.P.(C) 16096\/2024, CM APPLs. 67638\/2024 & 20198\/2026<\/b><\/p>\n
(SJB, Sachin Datta, J.)<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Overview<\/b><\/p>\n
This case came before the Delhi High Court as a writ petition which was filed on behalf of a minor child, by her adoptive parents. The dispute was pertaining to the refusal of the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) for issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC), required to relocate the child to Canada.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Court was required to examine whether such refusal was justified merely because the adoption took place under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), and not under Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act). The Court also addressed a larger issue as to whether administrative authorities can take a strict approach when it comes to matters involving welfare of a child.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Facts of the Case<\/b><\/p>\n The child, born on 2 March 2018, was adopted by the petitioners as per Sikh customs in September 2019. The adoption was formed through an adoption deed dated 8 February 2021, under the HAMA. All records such as the birth certificate and passport were updated to reflect the adoptive parents.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The mother was a permanent resident in Canada, while the father was a Canadian citizen and an OCI card holder. For the relocation of the child, the parents initiated the process under the adoption regulations. The District Magistrate, Ferozepur, conducted necessary inquiry and both, the verification report as well as the family background report was submitted in April 2022.<\/span><\/p>\n Instead of issuing the NOC, CARA issued a \u201csupport letter\u201d in November 2022. Things turned more serious when, in October 2023, the parents were informed by the Canadian agency that their application had been rejected on CARAs portal on the basis that the case related to adoption under HAMA and therefore could not be processed.<\/span><\/p>\n Further, it was revealed that CARA officials made suggestions as to whether the adoption could be processed again under the Juvenile Justice framework. This created confusion, even though there was no dispute regarding the validity of the adoption itself.<\/span><\/p>\n After multiple failed attempts, through legal notices, and RTI applications, the petitioners finally approached the Delhi High Court seeking relief.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Legal Issues<\/b><\/p>\n Decision<\/b><\/p>\n The Delhi High Court allowed the petition. It was observed that the regulations as to adoption clearly provided for cases where children adopted under HAMA are sought to be relocated abroad. The stand taken by CARA as to its scope, when it comes to such cases, is unacceptable.<\/span><\/p>\n It was further held that once a District Magistrate had completed the process of verification, then it is the responsibility of CARA to take the matter forward. This included coordination with the authorities of the receiving country. The adoptive parents could not be expected to go through with these procedural requirements on their own.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Court also examined the unnecessary complications created by CARA, while suggesting that the adoption could be reversed under another law. It was held that such an approach creates a misunderstanding as to legal requirements and only delays the process.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As to the \u201csupport letter,\u201d the court clarified that it cannot be treated as a substitute for an NOC, when it is specifically required under the regulations and by the receiving country.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n CARA was directed to coordinate with the Canadian authorities, clarify the legal take on such matters, and complete the steps under the Hague Convention. It was further ordered to issue the NOC, once these formalities are completed without any further delay, since the matter was pertaining to the welfare of a child.<\/span><\/p>\n The petition was disposed of accordingly.<\/span><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Gur Kaur (Minor) and Ors.\u00a0 \u200b {Petitioners }\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0Union of India & Anr.\u00a0 {Respondents} W.P.(C) 16096\/2024, CM APPLs. 67638\/2024 & 20198\/2026 (SJB, Sachin Datta, J.) Overview This case came before the Delhi High Court as a writ petition which was filed on behalf of a minor child, by her adoptive parents. The dispute […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3741,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3739","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3739","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3739"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3739\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3742,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3739\/revisions\/3742"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3741"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3739"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3739"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3739"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n