Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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

Latest Legal News