A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya was hearing a writ petition filed by a 13-year-old girl and her adoptive parents challenging a CARA clarification that prevented processing of an inter-country relative adoption after the child had already been adopted under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).

“Why are you opposing adoption by family members? Why are you against this? Family wants to adopt but all bureaucratic red tape comes in the way. Very negative attitude by your department. This is not the first case we are coming across like this,” Justice Nagarathna remarked.

Background

The petition concerns the child's adoption by her late mother's elder sister and brother-in-law, who are US residents and Overseas Citizens of India. According to the petition, the child was adopted by her maternal aunt and uncle under a registered adoption deed under HAMA after the death of her mother in July 2024.

The petition states that the adoption had initially been processed as an inter-country relative adoption under Chapter VII of the Adoption Regulations, 2022 and had reached an advanced stage.

However, the process was halted after CARA issued an Office Memorandum dated February 9, 2026 clarifying that once an adoption has already been completed under HAMA, the same case cannot be processed under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the Adoption Regulations, 2022 in view of Section 56(3) and 56(4) of the JJ Act.

Section 56(3) States that nothing in the JJ Act applies to the adoption of children made under HAMA. Section 56(4) Mandates that all inter-country adoptions must be executed exclusively in accordance with the JJ Act and the adoption regulations framed by the CARA.

Acting on that clarification, the District Child Protection Unit rejected the petitioners' application on April 15, 2026. The petition challenges both the February 9 Office Memorandum and the rejection order.

The petitioners contend that they have been left without any legal route for family reunification because of a conflict between Indian and American adoption frameworks. In September 2025, the United States announced that it would no longer issue Hague Adoption Certificates in cases where the adoption had taken place under HAMA, on the ground that HAMA does not provide the legal framework necessary to ensure certain safeguards under the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption.

The petition states that this rendered Chapter VIII of the Adoption Regulations, which governs relocation abroad following HAMA adoptions, ineffective in the United States. At the same time, CARA's interpretation of Section 56(3) of the JJ Act foreclosed the Chapter VII route for inter-country relative adoption because the child had already been adopted under HAMA.

The petition contends that the clarification, read with Sections 56(3) and 56(4) of the JJ Act, leaves a child who has been validly adopted under HAMA without any avenue for inter-country relocation where the receiving State has refused to issue clearances under the Hague Convention for HAMA adoption orders, thus violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The petition seeks the quashing of CARA's February 9, 2026 Office Memorandum and the rejection order issued by the District Child Protection Unit. It also seeks directions permitting the child's case to be processed under the Chapter VII framework governing inter-country relative adoptions.

Court Proceedings

During the hearing today, counsel appearing for CARA sought time to file a reply and requested that the matter be taken up after the summer vacation.

However, Advocate Noor Shergill for the petitioners pleaded urgency, submitting that the permission granted by the US government for the adoption would expire on July 20.

The Court kept the matter on July 16^th, and observed that if CARA failed to file its counter affidavit by then, the Court may proceed without the counter. Justice Nagarathna added that the permission granted by the US authorities could not be defeated merely because CARA had not filed its response.

Shergil further requested that CARA continue processing the application pending adjudication of the writ petition. He highlighted that the rejection was based on a Rule that is under challenge in the present writ petition.

He submitted that if the Court ultimately rules in favour of the petitioners, restarting the process would cause further delay. He therefore sought a direction that the background process be completed so that the necessary letter could be issued immediately if the petition succeeds.

Justice Nagarathna, expressed concern over CARA's opposition to the adoption. “Why are you taking such a negative stand? Parents are being granted to juvenile children and they are able to adopt. Why are you coming in the way?” she asked.

CARA's counsel submitted that the child could not be permitted to relocate to the United States, under the applicable rules because the Juvenile Justice Act framework could not be combined with a HAMA adoption.

Justice Nagarathna disagreed, observing that the adoption need not necessarily be processed under the Juvenile Justice Act itself and such adoptions are recognised under JJ Act.

She then questioned CARA's opposition to adoptions by close relatives. Recalling an earlier matter involving twins adopted by their father's UK based sister, Justice Nagarathna remarked that CARA had raised all obstacles in that case.

The Court ultimately ordered that the matter be listed on July 16 and directed CARA to take all requisite steps in the meantime for processing the application by the petitioner, without prejudice to CARA's contentions in the writ petition.

Advocate Noor Shergill and AoR Anuja Pethia along with advocates Rishabh Nigam and Amisha Aggarwal represented the petitioners.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 695/2026

Case Title – X v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors.