The Delhi High Court has held that the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) cannot abdicate its statutory responsibility by issuing a mere support letter in cases of inter-country relocation of children adopted under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and must instead pursue compliance with the Hague Convention and then issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC).<\/p>\n
The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking directions to CARA to issue an NOC in respect of the relocation of a minor child adopted under HAMA, 1956, and to declare the issuance of a support letter in place of an NOC as illegal.<\/p>\n
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sachin Datta, upon examining the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021, observed: \u201cThe language of the afore-quoted Regulations leaves no manner of doubt that they clearly delineate and cast obligations on CARA in respect of adoptions already concluded under HAMA, 1956, prior to the commencement of the 2021 Regulations. The Regulations expressly mandate that in such a situation, CARA \u201cshall comply\u201d with the provisions of Article 5 and\/or 17 of the Hague Convention\u201d. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt is evident from the words of Regulation 67 that upon receipt of the verified documents\u2026 it is incumbent upon CARA to pursue the matter further for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the provisions of Articles 5 and\/or 17 of the Hague Convention\u201d, the Bench added. <\/p>\n
Senior Advocate Nandita Rao appeared for the petitioners; Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC, appeared for the respondents.<\/p>\n
Background <\/p>\n
The petitioners approached the Court aggrieved by the refusal of CARA to issue a No Objection Certificate in respect of the relocation of a minor child to Canada, despite completion of adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.<\/p>\n
The adoption had been formalised prior to the coming into force of the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021, and the petitioners had initiated the procedure for relocation under the applicable regulatory framework. The District Magistrate had furnished the requisite verification report in terms of the prescribed format.<\/p>\n
However, CARA issued a \u201cSupport Letter\u201d instead of an NOC and subsequently reflected the relocation application as rejected because the adoption pertained to HAMA, 1956. The Foreign Adoption Agency informed the petitioners that in the absence of an NOC, the relocation process could not proceed.<\/p>\n
The petitioners contended that the refusal to issue an NOC was contrary to the Adoption Regulations and the framework of the Hague Convention, whereas the respondents contended that CARA\u2019s jurisdiction was confined to adoptions processed under the Juvenile Justice Act and that issuance of a support letter was appropriate in such cases.<\/p>\n
Court\u2019s Observation <\/p>\n
The Court examined the statutory scheme under the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021 and the Adoption Regulations, 2022, and found that the framework expressly contemplates situations where adoptions under HAMA, 1956, were concluded before the commencement of the 2021 Regulations.<\/p>\n
At the outset, the Court noted that Chapter IV-A of the 2021 Regulations specifically governs such cases and that Regulation 22B mandates a defined procedure upon receipt of verification of documents from the District Magistrate. <\/p>\n
The Court further examined the interplay between Regulation 22B and Regulation 22E and held that once the verification report is received, the responsibility shifts to CARA to ensure compliance with the requirements of Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention. <\/p>\n
It observed that the statutory framework clearly places the obligation on CARA, noting: \u201cThe language of Regulation 22B(2)\u2026 clearly conveys the mandate that compliance with the provisions of Articles 5 and\/or 17 of the Hague Convention is the responsibility of CARA\u2026\u201d <\/p>\n
The Court then considered the provisions of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, particularly Regulation 67, and held that the position remains unchanged even under the updated regulatory regime. It is observed that upon receipt of verified documents in the prescribed format, CARA is required to take further steps to ensure compliance with the Hague Convention.<\/p>\n
The Court rejected the contention of the respondents that the Regulations were inapplicable to adoptions concluded under HAMA, 1956, holding that the language of the Regulations clearly extends to such cases.<\/p>\n
It further held: \u201cIt would be wholly contrary to the purport of the express language\u2026 to leave prospective parents in the lurch\u2026\u201d <\/p>\n
The Court found that CARA had failed to discharge its statutory obligation by issuing a support letter instead of pursuing the process with the authorities of the receiving State.<\/p>\n
It observed: \u201cIt is thus untenable for CARA to abdicate its responsibility by issuing a mere support letter instead of pursuing the matter\u2026 and issuing an NOC\u2026\u201d <\/p>\n
The Court also examined the scheme of the Hague Convention and noted that it mandates cooperation between the authorities of the State of origin and the receiving State in the best interest of the child.<\/p>\n
It was observed that Article 7 of the Convention requires central authorities to cooperate and eliminate obstacles to the application of the Convention, thereby reinforcing CARA\u2019s obligation to actively facilitate the process.<\/p>\n
The Court further noted that accepting the respondents\u2019 contention would result in a situation where valid adoptions under HAMA, 1956, would be rendered ineffective for inter-country relocation, which could not be sustained in law.<\/p>\n
The Court also found that the confusion in the present case arose due to a misconception on the part of the authorities, who failed to appreciate that the regulatory framework required CARA to actively pursue compliance with the Hague Convention rather than decline involvement.<\/p>\n
On a cumulative assessment, the Court held that CARA is under a clear statutory obligation to pursue the matter with the authorities of the receiving State and facilitate compliance with the Hague Convention requirements.<\/p>\n
Conclusion <\/p>\n
The High Court held that CARA is obligated to pursue compliance with the Hague Convention in cases of relocation of children adopted under HAMA, 1956 and cannot discharge its responsibility by issuing a mere support letter.<\/p>\n
The Court directed CARA to liaise with the Canadian authorities, clarify the legal position regarding the validity of adoption, and ensure completion of the process contemplated under Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention. It further directed that upon conclusion of the said exercise, CARA shall issue a No Objection Certificate to the petitioners.<\/p>\n
Cause Title: Gur Kaur (Minor) & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:3264)<\/p>\n
Appearances<\/p>\n
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Nandita Rao; Advocates Mrinalini Sen, Aditi Singh, Karan Mishra, Ankur Raghav<\/p>\n
Respondents: Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC; Akash Pathak, GP; Advocates Swati, Himanshi Singh, Monalisa Pradhan<\/p>\n