UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & 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

Latest Legal News