Adoptive Parents Not Allowed To Meet Child Physically, Must Be Provided Child Study Report & Medical Report To Give Preference: Kerala HC

Justice C.S. Dias referred to Section 59 (6) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015 and Adoption Regulations of 2022 to state that child study report and medical examination report of children who are legally free for adoption must be uploaded on the Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System (CARINGS) platform which is the designated portal of the Central Adoption Resource Agency.

“The afore-quoted provisions make it mandatory that the child study report and medical examination report of a child declared legally free for adoption be uploaded on CARINGS. Prospective adoptive parents can be expected to express their preference only after reviewing the reports, especially when they are not permitted to see the child physically.”

It is to be noted that as per Regulation 11 of the Adoption Regulations of 2022, prospective parents would be sent maximum three referrals through the CARINGS portal and will include the child's photograph, Child Study Report, and Medical Examination Report. As per Regulation 11, prospective parents must reserve the child for adoption within 48 hours of being referred. Additionally, Regulation 44 (2) states that if the prospective parents do not reserve the referred child within 48 hours, the child will be referred to the next waiting adoptive parents. Regulation 9 (3) states that if prospective adoptive parents do not reserve one child from the three referrals sent to them, they would be debarred for one year, after which they can apply for fresh registration.

As per the facts, petitioner and his wife have a 5 year old adopted son. They decided to adopt another daughter and registered at the CARINGS.

Initially, the petitioner was referred with children from Karnataka and Maharashtra who he did not reserve since he was looking to adopt from Kerala for easy adoption process. The petitioner received a third referral, but the medical examination report of the child was not accessible on the CARINGS platform. The petitioner emailed to the specialised adoption agency where the child resided for the medical examination report, who sent it to him. After reviewing the child study report and medical examination report, the petitioner decided to reserve the child. However, the child's profile was removed because he failed to reserve the child within 48 hours and he was also debarred for one year since he failed to reserve any of the three children referred to him.

The petitioner submitted that he was unable to reserve the child within 48 hours since there was no medical examination report of the child. He argued that 48 hours must be calculated after him receiving the medical examination report of the child.

The DSGI submitted that petitioner failed to reserve the child within 48 hours as per the regulations and the child was subsequently referred to another prospective parents. The DSGI further stated that petitioner did not reserve any child from the three referrals send to him and that he cannot be finicky about choosing a child, since there were over 32,000 prospective adoptive parents waiting for adoption.

The Court noted that the petitioner was debarred for one year without even hearing him and that the order was issued without application of mind. The Court concluded that debarring the petitioner was arbitrary, as the 48-hour period would only begin once the medical examination report was received.

The Court also emphasized that prospective adoptive parents who are yearning for a child should be treated with empathy, compassion and a holistic approach, rather than adhering strictly to rigid procedures. It also referred to Regulation 63 which empowers the Relaxation Committee of the Authority to make exceptions to any provision of the regulations in deserving cases.

Court further stated, “It is to be borne in mind that we are not dealing with a commercial dispute to stick to the strict rigour of time; instead, we are dealing with an adoptive couple's feelings, whose profound desire for a child has persisted agonisingly for the past four years. This is a matter that has to be dealt with with empathy, humane consideration and a holistic perspective that resonates with the anxiety of an adoptive couple rather than sticking to procedural rigidity and its pedantic interpretations. Matters pertaining to children cannot be confined to the four corners of legal technicalities; they demand a compassionate and progressive approach that prioritises the child's best interest.”

As such, the Court quashed the orders debarring the petitioner and his wife. It also directed the Central Adoption Resource Authority to refer a profile of the child to the petitioner and his wife for exercising their option of adoption.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates K.N.Abhilash, Sunil Nair Palakkat, Rishi Varma T.R., Rithik S.Anand, N.K.Sheeba, V.Sreejith, K.M.Tintu, Anu Paul, Sreelakshmi Menon P, Sreejith A

Counsel for Respondents: Deputy Solicitor General of India, T C Krishna

Case Title: Lijo Stephen Chacko v Union of India

Case No: WP(C) NO. 1998 OF 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 97