The Delhi High Court has clarified that the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) cannot evade its statutory duty to facilitate international relocation of children adopted under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, merely by issuing a support letter instead of a No Objection Certificate (NOC). The judgment affirms that procedural compliance under the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021, and Adoption Regulations, 2022, remains mandatory even for pre-existing adoptions, reinforcing the primacy of the child’s best interest in intercountry adoption processes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, a minor child (Petitioner No. 1) and her adoptive parents (Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3), sought mandatory directions to CARA to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the child’s relocation to Canada. The adoption was effected under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), prior to the enforcement of the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021. Despite completion of all required documentation, CARA issued only a "Support Letter" and rejected the relocation application on the ground that it "relates to HAMA," rendering the application ineligible for processing under the international adoption framework.
Key Facts
- Petitioner No. 1 was born on 02.03.2018 in India
- Adopted by Petitioners No. 2 (Indian citizen with Canadian Permanent Resident Status) and Petitioner No. 3 (Canadian citizen and OCI cardholder) under Sikh customs on 08.09.2019
- Passport No. T7410837 issued to Petitioner No. 1 on 09.09.2019
- Adoption Deed executed under HAMA, 1956 on 08.02.2021
- Birth certificate issued by Office of Civil Surgeon, Moga on 12.07.2021, naming adoptive parents
- Foreign Adoption Agency: Cornerstone Adoption Agency, Canada
- District Magistrate, Ferozepur, Punjab, issued Verification Report dated 18.04.2022 under Schedule XXXIII of the 2021 Regulations
- CARA issued a "Support Letter" on 22.11.2022
- On 10.10.2023, the Foreign Adoption Agency notified petitioners that CARA portal showed application status as "Rejected" with remark: "The matter cannot be taken up as it is related to HAMA"
- RTI application filed on 29.12.2023 was rejected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005
- Legal notice to CARA CEO dated 2024 received no response
Procedural History
- 08.02.2021: Adoption Deed executed under HAMA, 1956
- 18.04.2022: District Magistrate, Ferozepur, issued Verification Report under Schedule XXXIII
- 22.11.2022: CARA issued Support Letter instead of NOC
- 10.10.2023: Foreign Adoption Agency informed petitioners of rejection on CARA portal
- 29.12.2023: RTI application filed and rejected
- 2024: Legal notice sent to CARA CEO - no reply received
- 2024: Writ Petition No. W.P.(C) 16096/2024 filed before Delhi High Court
- 20.04.2026: Judgment pronounced by Justice Sachin Datta
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that HAMA adoption is legally valid under Indian law and falls squarely within the scope of Regulation 22B of the 2021 Regulations and Regulation 67 of the 2022 Regulations. CARA’s obligation to comply with Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention is triggered upon receipt of the Verification Report. Issuing a "Support Letter" instead of an NOC is a statutory failure and violates the child’s right to family life and best interest.
Respondents (CARA): Contended that CARA’s jurisdiction is limited to adoptions under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and that HAMA adoptions fall outside its purview. The absence of Articles 5 and 17 certifications from Canada rendered issuance of an NOC impossible. The Support Letter was the only permissible alternative.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- A writ of mandamus directing CARA to issue an NOC under Regulation 67(3) of the Adoption Regulations, 2022
- Direction to update the portal status of Application No. RCAN201906122785 from "Rejected" to "Pending" or "Approved"
- Declaration that issuance of a Support Letter instead of an NOC is illegal
- Costs of the petition
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether CARA is legally obligated to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) under the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021 and Adoption Regulations, 2022, for a child adopted under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, when the receiving country is a signatory to the 1993 Hague Convention, and the Verification Report under Schedule XXXIII has been duly submitted.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned Senior Counsel argued that Regulation 22B of the 2021 Regulations explicitly governs adoptions under HAMA concluded before its commencement. The language "shall comply with the provisions of Articles 5 or 17" imposes a mandatory duty on CARA to initiate and complete the Hague Convention formalities. The issuance of a Support Letter was a subterfuge to avoid statutory obligation. The child’s right to family unity under Article 21 of the Constitution and the principle of best interest under the Convention were paramount. Precedents in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh were cited to reinforce the state’s duty to protect children’s rights.
For the Respondent
The Solicitor General contended that CARA’s mandate is confined to adoptions under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and that HAMA adoptions are purely civil matters outside its regulatory ambit. The absence of certification from Canadian authorities under Articles 5 and 17 rendered issuance of an NOC legally impossible. The Support Letter was a pragmatic, non-binding acknowledgment, not a statutory failure. The petitioners were advised to pursue direct diplomatic channels.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed textual analysis of Regulation 22B of the 2021 Regulations and Regulation 67 of the 2022 Regulations. The title of Chapter IV-A - "Procedure for children adopted under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 by parents who desire to relocate the child abroad" - was held to be conclusive evidence of legislative intent to include HAMA adoptions within CARA’s regulatory framework.
"The language of Regulation 22B(2) read with Regulation 22E(1) clearly conveys the mandate that compliance with the provisions of Articles 5 and/or 17 of the Hague Convention is the responsibility of CARA, once the verification of documents... is received."
The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that CARA’s jurisdiction is limited to adoptions under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, noting that the 2021 and 2022 Regulations explicitly carve out a separate procedure for HAMA adoptions. The Court emphasized that the obligation to "comply" with Articles 5 and 17 is not contingent on prior receipt of foreign certifications - it is CARA’s duty to initiate and facilitate the process.
"It would be wholly contrary to the purport of the express language... to leave prospective parents in the lurch, despite the fact that the adoption under HAMA, 1956 stood completed prior to the commencement of the 2021 Regulations."
The Court further relied on Article 7 of the Hague Convention, which mandates intergovernmental cooperation for the protection of children. CARA’s failure to respond to the Canadian authorities’ queries on 28.03.2023 was held to be a dereliction of duty. The Court noted that CARA itself had no objection to the validity of the adoption, making the refusal to issue an NOC arbitrary and unreasonable.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court directed CARA to immediately liaise with the Canadian authorities to facilitate compliance with Articles 5 and/or 17 of the 1993 Hague Convention. CARA is directed to issue a No Objection Certificate to the petitioners upon completion of such formalities. The portal status of Application No. RCAN201906122785 shall be updated accordingly. All pending applications are disposed of. The Court emphasized that compliance must be completed within 60 days from the date of judgment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
CARA’s Duty Is Proactive, Not Passive
- Practitioners must now argue that CARA cannot wait for foreign authorities to initiate compliance - it must actively pursue Articles 5 and 17 certifications
- A "Support Letter" is not a substitute for an NOC when the receiving country is a Hague signatory
- Failure to issue an NOC after submission of Schedule XXXIII report constitutes a violation of statutory mandate
HAMA Adoptions Are Not Second-Class
- Valid adoptions under HAMA, 1956 are fully recognized under the 2021 and 2022 Regulations
- No distinction can be made between adoptions under JJ Act and HAMA for the purpose of international relocation
- Courts will treat delays or denials in NOC issuance as violations of the child’s fundamental right to family life under Article 21
Procedural Compliance Trumps Jurisdictional Excuses
- CARA cannot evade obligations by claiming jurisdictional limitations
- The Regulations explicitly extend to pre-2021 HAMA adoptions
- Legal notices and RTI applications must be used to compel CARA to act - non-response is not an option
