The Calcutta High Court has overturned the Child Welfare Committee’s declaration that a newborn found in a drain was an abandoned child and that the biological parents were incapacitated, holding that the Committee failed to follow the procedural safeguards mandated by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Asmita Poddar @ Payel Poddar, claimed to be the biological mother of a newborn male child (named RIBHU) found injured in a drain on 23 March 2024. The Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Kolkata, declared the child abandoned and the parents incapacitated, directing the Specialized Adoption Agency (SAA) to proceed with a Legally Free for Adoption (LFA) process.
Key Facts
23 March 2024: Newborn infant discovered in a drain with serious injuries; rescued by locals and taken to Manicktala Police Station.
23 March 2024: Ritam Das accompanied locals to the police station, claiming to be the biological father.
23 March 2024: Asmita Poddar arrived at the hospital and claimed to be the biological mother.
9 June 2024: CWC Chairperson lodged a written complaint to the police requesting an FIR under Sections 308/34 IPC.
13 June 2024: FIR No. 83 of 2024 registered under Sections 308/34 IPC.
9 June 2024: CWC directed police to conduct DNA testing of the child, petitioner and Ritam Das.
27 June 2024: DNA report received confirming petitioner and Ritam Das as biological parents.
3 June 2024: High Court ordered CWC to ascertain parentage through DNA.
3 July 2024: High Court disposed of the writ petition, noting DNA results but refusing to order immediate return of the child.
30 October 2024: Petitioner's second writ petition (W.P.A 17147 of 2024) pending before regular bench.
18 November 2024: CWC issued order declaring the child abandoned and parents incapacitated, directing SAA to proceed with LFA.
6 August 2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Krishna Rao.
Procedural History
12 June 2024: Writ Petition (W.P.A 12471 of 2024) filed by petitioner seeking return of the child.
3 June 2024: High Court directed CWC to obtain DNA samples.
3 July 2024: High Court disposed of the writ petition without ordering return of the child.
30 October 2024: Petitioner's second writ petition filed.
6 August 2026: Calcutta High Court delivered the present judgment, setting aside the CWC order dated 18 November 2024.
Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argues that DNA evidence proves her and Ritam Das are the biological parents; CWC denied her hearing and declared the child abandoned without due inquiry, violating Sections 2(1) and 38 of the JJ Act.
Respondent (State / CWC): Maintains that the child was found abandoned and the parents were incapacitated; relies on the CWC’s statutory discretion and prior case law such as Temple of Healing v. Union of India.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the CWC order, return of the child, and direction that the CWC conduct a proper inquiry respecting statutory procedures.
The Legal Issue
Whether the Child Welfare Committee’s order dated 18 November 2024 declaring the child abandoned and the parents incapacitated, and directing the Legally Free for Adoption process, is sustainable under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the DNA report dated 27 June 2024 establishing her and Ritam Das as the biological parents.
Cited Section 2(1) of the JJ Act defining “abandoned child” and the mandatory inquiry requirement under Section 36.
Asserted that the CWC failed to give any notice or hearing, violating principles of natural justice and the procedural safeguards in Section 38.
Referred to Geeta Dattatray Achari v. State of Maharashtra and Dasari Anil Kumar v. Child Welfare Project Director for the need of a proper inquiry before declaring a child abandoned.
For the Respondent/State
The CWC argued that the child’s severe injuries and the circumstances of abandonment justified the declaration.
Relied on Temple of Healing v. Union of India for the Committee’s discretion to deem parents “incapacitated”.
Contended that the DNA result, while confirming parentage, does not automatically negate the child’s abandonment status given the mother’s alleged involvement in the act of abandonment.
Emphasised that the CWC’s decision was taken in the “paramount interest of the child”.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, focusing on the definitions of “abandoned child” (Section 2(1)) and the procedural safeguards for declaring a child “legally free for adoption” (Section 38). It held that:
An inquiry is a condition precedent to any declaration of abandonment; the CWC’s order lacked any record of such an inquiry.
The Committee must afford a notice and an opportunity of hearing to the biological parents before labeling them “incapacitated”, as mandated by Section 36(2) and the principles of natural justice.
The DNA report, while establishing biological parentage, does not by itself satisfy the statutory requirement of an inquiry into the parents’ fitness, which includes assessment of mental health, substance abuse, financial stability, and criminal history.
The Court distinguished Temple of Healing by noting that the latter dealt with unfit guardians, not a scenario where the biological parents have been proven and yet denied a hearing.
The Court emphasized that the protection of the child’s welfare cannot override procedural fairness; any deprivation of parental rights must be grounded in a thorough, documented inquiry.
"The decision of the Child Welfare Committee dated 18th November, 2024, is set aside and quashed and consequently, all actions with respect to the custody of the minor, is also set aside and quashed in terms of the order dated 18th November, 2024."
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order, directed the adoptive parents to surrender the child to the CWC by 7 August 2026, ordered the CWC to place the child with the Specialized Adoption Agency immediately, and mandated a fresh inquiry within four weeks, giving the biological parents a proper hearing.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Calcutta High Court quashed the CWC’s order dated 18 November 2024 declaring the child abandoned and the parents incapacitated. The adoptive parents must surrender the child to the CWC, Kolkata, on or before 7 August 2026. The CWC is directed to place the child with the Specialized Adoption Agency immediately and to conduct a fresh inquiry, providing notice and hearing to the biological parents, and to issue its final order within four weeks of receipt of this judgment. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Due Process Is Mandatory for CWC Declarations
The Committee must conduct a statutory inquiry before labeling a child abandoned.
Notice and an opportunity of hearing to the biological parents are non-negotiable requirements under Section 36.
DNA Evidence Alone Does Not Override Procedural Safeguards
Even when DNA confirms parentage, the CWC must still assess the parents’ fitness under Section 2(14) and Section 38 before declaring them incapacitated.
Practitioners should ensure that DNA reports are complemented by a full social investigation report.
Adoption Procedures Must Follow the JJ Act Strictly
Any declaration of a child as “legally free for adoption” must be made within the time limits prescribed in Section 38(1) and after a documented inquiry.
Failure to comply renders the adoption process vulnerable to judicial review and possible reversal.
