Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Maintenance Must Reflect Financial Realities and Social Standards: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance in Domestic Violence Land Classified as Agricultural Not Automatically Exempt from SARFAESI Proceedings: High Court Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Lack of Independent Witnesses Undermines Prosecution: Madras High Court Reaffirms Acquittal in SCST Case Proceedings Before Tribunal Are Summary in Nature and It Need Not Be Conducted Like Civil Suits: Kerala High Court Affirms Award in Accident Claim Affidavit Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Punjab and Haryana High Court

Policy Ensures More Special Needs Children Get Adopted: Delhi High Court Upholds CARA’s Decision on Retrospective Application of Adoption Regulations, 2022

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Delhi today dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the retrospective application of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, pertaining to the eligibility of Prospective Adoptive Parents (PAPs) with two or more biological children. The court held that the Central Adoption Resource Authority’s (CARA) decision to apply the 2022 Regulations retroactively is valid and not arbitrary.

Legal Point of the Judgment: The core issue adjudicated was the validity of CARA’s decision to retrospectively apply Adoption Regulations, 2022, to pending adoption applications of registered PAPs, altering the eligibility criteria.

Facts and Issues: Petitioners, registered under CARA as PAPs under the 2017 Regulations, contended that the retrospective application of the 2022 Regulations, disqualifying them from adopting a ‘normal’ child due to having two biological children, was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The 2022 Regulations only allow such couples to adopt special needs or hard-to-place children.

Court’s Assessment: Justice Subramonium Prasad, in his detailed judgment, held that the retrospective application of the 2022 Regulations does not amount to a retrospective enactment of subordinate legislation. It was clarified that registration as PAPs does not guarantee the right to adopt a specific category of children. The court observed, “The policy has been brought in only to ensure that more and more children with special needs get adopted.”

Further, the court distinguished the Petitioners’ reliance on various precedents, emphasizing that the rights of childless couples or those with one child in adopting normal children should be balanced against those of PAPs with two or more children. The judgment noted, “A balanced approach ought to be welcomed which attempts to reduce the wait for parents with a single child or devoid of even that, in anticipation of adoption.”

Decision: Dismissing the writ petitions, the court affirmed the procedural and retroactive nature of Regulation 5(7) of the 2022 Regulations. It held that no vested right to adopt a ‘normal’ child had accrued to the Petitioners at the pre-referral stage, thereby validating CARA’s decision.

Date of Decision: 16th February 2024

DEBARATI NANDEE VS MS. TRIPTI GURHA & ANR

Similar News