The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of guidelines to the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to prevent referrals of children to ineligible prospective adoptive parents, ensure accurate maintenance of adoption records and fix accountability for administrative lapses in the inter-country adoption process.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed CARA to verify the eligibility of prospective adoptive parents at the time of registration, revalidation of the Home Study Report and before referring a child for adoption.

The Court also directed the authority to configure its online portal to prevent referrals inconsistent with statutory eligibility criteria and audit profiles affected by the migration from the CARINGS portal to the Mission Vatsalya Portal.

The directions were issued while dismissing a plea filed by a prospective adoptive parent residing in Singapore, who sought to adopt a baby girl referred to him by CARA despite his family being ineligible to adopt a child from the normal category under the Adoption Regulations, 2022.

The Court observed that although CARA's administrative lapses and delay in processing the No Objection Certificate (NOC) deserved strong disapproval, they could not override statutory eligibility requirements or confer an enforceable right to adopt a particular child.

The petitioner and his wife, who reside in Singapore, had initially registered as prospective adoptive parents in December 2020. While they had one biological child at the time of registration, their second son was born in March 2022.

Their Home Study Report was revalidated in September 2025, recording that they had two biological sons. CARA subsequently referred the baby, an abandoned infant born in November 2025, to the petitioner in January this year. The petitioner accepted the referral and later visited the child.

However, in March, the adoption portal reflected the application status as “Application Rejected – Withdrawn”, although the petitioner had not withdrawn his application. CARA subsequently informed him that he was ineligible to adopt a child from the normal category.

The Court held that the baby could not be treated as a special-needs or hard-to-place child merely because of administrative delays in the referral or issuance of the NOC. It clarified that delays attributable to administrative processing or litigation could not be used to bring a child within the hard-to-place category.

The Court further held that neither the referral of the child nor its acceptance by the petitioner conferred any vested or enforceable right to adoption, as the petitioner was statutorily ineligible to adopt a child from the normal category.

It also rejected the contention that CARA's delay in issuing the NOC should result in deemed approval, observing that the prescribed timeline could not be interpreted to require issuance of an NOC where the prospective adoptive parents did not meet the eligibility criteria.

Emphasising the paramount importance of the child's best interests, the Court observed that the emotional attachment of prospective adoptive parents arising from an erroneous referral could not override statutory requirements or undermine fairness to other families awaiting adoption.

Apart from directing CARA to verify eligibility and prevent inconsistent referrals, the Court directed the authority to adhere to the NOC timelines prescribed under Regulation 17(1) of the 2022 Regulations.

“Where deficiencies in the requisite documents prevent processing of the NOC, CARA must communicate the deficiencies in writing, preferably through a consolidated communication, to the concerned PAPs and the authorised agency or IDM, as applicable,” the Court said.

It also directed CARA to provide reasons for rejection or closure of applications, investigate the administrative lapses and fix responsibility wherever necessary.

“CARA shall examine the lapses identified in the present case, take appropriate corrective measures and fix responsibility wherever necessitated. It shall also issue necessary instructions and standard operating procedures, and sensitise the officers and staff dealing with eligibility verification, referrals, NOCs and grievances, to ensure compliance with the above directions,” the judge directed.

The Court vacated the interim status quo order and directed CARA to forthwith take steps to place the Baby for adoption in accordance with law.

While dismissing the petition, the Court clarified that its judgment did not question the bona fides or suitability of the petitioner and his wife. It expressed hope that they might find a child in need of a family, including a child with special needs.

“Behind every profile on its portal, is a family waiting for a child, and a child waiting for a family,” the Court observed.