CARA Must Facilitate Relocation Of Children Adopted Under HAMA; Cannot Abdicate Responsibility By Issuing Mere 'Support Letters': Delhi High Court

"It is untenable for CARA to abdicate its responsibility by issuing a mere support letter instead of pursuing the matter with the concerned authorities of the recipient State and issuing an NOC upon conclusion of such formalities." Delhi High Court, in a significant judgment dated April 20, 2026, has held that the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) cannot refuse to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the intercountry relocation of a child merely because the adoption was conducted under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).

A bench of Justice Sachin Datta observed that the Adoption Regulations expressly cast a mandate on CARA to facilitate such relocations by liaising with foreign authorities under the Hague Convention. The Court noted that rejecting applications on a digital portal with the remark "matter related to HAMA" constitutes an abdication of statutory duty.

The petitioners, a couple residing in Canada (one a Permanent Resident and the other an OCI cardholder), validly adopted a minor child in India under HAMA, 1956, via an adoption deed dated February 8, 2021. When they sought to relocate the child to Canada, the District Magistrate provided the necessary verification report, but CARA issued only a "Support Letter" and marked their portal application as "Rejected." CARA contended that since the adoption was under HAMA and not the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, it had no authority to issue a formal NOC.

The primary question before the court was whether CARA is obligated under the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021, and the Adoption Regulations, 2022, to issue an NOC for children adopted under HAMA. The court also examined whether CARA can fulfill its statutory obligation by issuing a "Support Letter" instead of a formal NOC when the receiving country is a signatory to the Hague Convention.

Regulations Expressly Cover HAMA Adoptions Seeking Overseas Relocation

The Court began by analyzing the language of Chapter IV-A of the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021. It noted that the title of the chapter itself explicitly refers to the "Procedure for children adopted under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 by parents who desire to relocate the child abroad." Justice Datta emphasized that the provisions were specifically intended to govern situations where a valid HAMA adoption has already taken place.

The Court observed that the language used in the title makes it "abundantly clear" that these regulations are the governing framework for such cases. It rejected the notion that HAMA adoptions fall outside the purview of CARA's regulatory obligations regarding intercountry relocation.

CARA Under Mandatory Obligation To Comply With Hague Convention Articles 5 & 17

The Court highlighted Regulation 22B(2) and 22E(1) of the 2021 Regulations, which stipulate that upon receipt of a verification report from the District Magistrate, CARA "shall comply" with Articles 5 or 17 of the Hague Convention. These articles require the competent authorities of the receiving state to determine the eligibility of adoptive parents and ensure the child is authorized to enter that state.

The Bench held that the responsibility to ensure this compliance rests squarely on CARA. The Court noted that Regulation 22B(3) requires CARA itself to procure the requisite certificates from the receiving country. It found that the agency cannot shift this burden onto the adoptive parents or leave them in a state of legal uncertainty.

"It would be wholly contrary to the purport of the express language of the Regulations to leave prospective parents in the lurch, despite the fact that the adoption under HAMA, 1956 stood completed."

Issuance Of 'Support Letter' Instead Of NOC Held Untenable

The Court dealt sternly with CARA’s practice of issuing "Support Letters" in place of the mandatory NOC. It observed that for Hague Convention ratified countries, such as Canada, the regulations specifically demand an NOC. The Court held that a support letter does not satisfy the requirements of the receiving state’s authorities, leading to a deadlock for the adoptive family.

The Bench clarified that even under the newer Adoption Regulations of 2022, specifically Regulation 67, the procedure remains unchanged for adoptions concluded under HAMA prior to September 2021. In such cases, CARA is legally bound to pursue the matter and facilitate the issuance of the final NOC.

Portal Rejections Based On 'HAMA' Remark Found To Be Misconceived

Regarding the rejection of the petitioners' application on the CARA portal with the remark "matter cannot be taken up as it is related to HAMA," the Court termed this a "misconception." The Court noted that the officials involved missed the legal point that the applicable regulations were designed specifically for such HAMA adoptions.

The Bench observed that instead of facilitating cooperation as mandated by Article 7 of the Hague Convention, CARA had failed to respond to communications from Canadian authorities. This lack of response created an avoidable obstacle in the relocation process, contrary to the spirit of international child welfare agreements.

Best Interest Of Child Is The Paramount Consideration

The Court reaffirmed that the principle of the "best interest of the child" is the guiding light in adoption and relocation matters. It held that any construction of the law that precludes parents of a validly adopted HAMA child from obtaining relocation approval would be unacceptable.

Justice Datta noted that since CARA had no objection to the validity of the adoption itself, its duty was to clear the procedural path. The Court emphasized that Central Authorities must cooperate to eliminate obstacles to the application of the Convention.

"The express wording of the 2021 Regulations leaves no manner of doubt that in such situations, it is incumbent on CARA to pursue the matter for conduct / conclusion of the exercise contemplated under Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention."

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing CARA to appropriately liaise with the Canadian authorities and convey the correct regulatory and statutory position. The Court ordered CARA to clarify to the foreign authorities that the adoption is valid and to request the completion of the exercise under Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention. Finally, CARA was directed to issue the NOC to the petitioners upon the conclusion of this exercise.

Date of Decision: 20 April 2026