Delhi High Court Directs CARA To Take Steps Within 4 Weeks
The Delhi High Court recently came to the rescue of an Australia-based couple, who were precluded from taking their adopted son back to the country for over 4 years, due to inaction of CARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority).
Justice Sachin Datta observed that the Adoption Deed was executed in 2020 and thus directed the Authority to forthwith issue a NOC enabling the Petitioner-couple to take the child with them.
The bench observed that the adoption stood concluded in accordance with the extant provisions of law and there was no impediment for CARA to grant the NOC.
CARA stated that in cases where children adopted under HAMA are sought to be relocated abroad by the adoptive parents— the Adoption Regulations 2022 require necessary documentation/ certification from the concerned Authority of the receiving Country as contemplated under the Hague Convention, 1993.
It contended that the NOC was held up due to absence of the aforesaid necessary documentation.
CARA also objected to registration of adoption deed by the adoptive father’s mother, on the basis of a General Power of Attorney. It contended that GPA is not a legally valid instrument under the Queensland Powers of Attorney Act, 1998, for the purpose of adoption.
At the outset, the High Court referred to Prema Gopal v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors. where the Supreme Court recently directed CARA to issue NOC to steadfast the process for inter-country adoption of two children by a 49-year-old single Indian woman who resides in the United Kingdom.
Coming to CARA’s objections, the Court observed Article 37 of the Hague Convention, 1993 itself implies that concluded adoptions under HAMA are required to comply with the extant requirements set out in HAMA itself, and cannot be retrospectively subject to any other extraneous requirements / preconditions.
It also noted that the concerned Australian Authorities had issued a communication seeking CARA support letter to validate the adoption for intercountry movement.
“Admittedly, requisite certificate/s have also already been issued by the District Magistrate (Bathinda, Punjab). There is no ground for withholding the grant of a support letter / NOC by CARA,” it observed.
The Court also rejected CARA’s arguments on GPA, stating that since no objection has been raised by the Australian Authorities, it is fallacious to contend that the concerned General Power of Attorney is not valid as per the Queensland Power of Attorney Act.
It cited Narinderjit Kaur v. Union of India and Another (1997) where the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a child can be adopted “under the authority” of the parents.
Appearance: Ms. Sheena Chhabra, Ms. Anjani Chhabra, Ms. Aakashi Gupta and Ms. Shilpa Chaurasia, Advs. along with petitioners and adoptive father; Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC along with Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Mr Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Ms. Chandni Godiyal, Mr. P. Chandni Mr. Sumit Bhargava, Advs., and Mr. G. Ravi, Asst. Director for CARA.
Case title: Jasleeniqbal Sidhu & Ors. v. Union of India& Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3880/2025
