ABC & ANR. V. THE CENTRAL ADOPTION RESOURCE AGENCY & ORS 2025: BHC-AS:29271-DB:

DATE: 16/07/2025

COURT: High Court of Bombay

BENCH: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale

FACTS:

The petitioners, an Indian couple domiciled in India and married since September 2011, approached the Bombay High Court seeking relief against the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) for refusing to register them as prospective adoptive parents. The case centers around their attempt to adopt a male child, Mohammed Moiz, born in the United States on 2nd July 2019 to the petitioners’ relatives (respondent nos. 5 and 6), who are Indian citizens currently residing in California, USA. Petitioner No. 2 is the biological sister of Respondent No. 6 (the child’s mother). Due to their inability to bear children, the petitioners wished to adopt baby Moiz under the category of "relative adoption" and brought him to India on 12th October 2019 with the intention of completing legal adoption formalities.

However, CARA refused to register the petitioners on its CARINGS web portal, citing that the Adoption Regulations, 2022, do not envisage the adoption of a foreign national such as Moiz, who is a U.S. citizen holding an American passport. As there is no codified personal law on adoption for Muslims, the petitioners filed Civil Misc. Application No. 58/2021 under Section 56(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, before the District Court, Pune. Although a 2021 amendment to the JJ Act transferred adoption jurisdiction from courts to District Magistrates, a High Court stay on the amendment kept the matter with the District Court. Despite this, the adoption remains pending due to CARA's refusal to approve and issue a pre-approval letter necessary for finalizing the process. The petitioners now fear that without a valid adoption order, Moiz's U.S. passport may not be renewed, potentially rendering his stay in India illegal, prompting them to seek judicial intervention.

ISSUES:

The central issue in this case was whether an Indian couple residing in India could legally adopt their U.S.-born nephew under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and the Adoption Regulations, 2022, despite the child being a foreign national and not classified as a "child in need of care and protection" or a "child in conflict with law." The petitioners also questioned whether CARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority) could deny registration and approval of the adoption, and whether the High Court could exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to allow such an adoption despite the statutory gaps.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, holding that neither the JJ Act nor the Adoption Regulations apply to the adoption of a foreign national child who is not in need of care and protection or in conflict with the law. The Court held that there was no legal basis under existing Indian law for such an adoption and declined to issue directions to CARA or intervene through its extraordinary jurisdiction.

The Court reasoned that the JJ Act and the Adoption Regulations, 2022, constitute a comprehensive legislative framework governing adoption in India. However, both the Act and the Regulations apply specifically to children who are either in need of care and protection or in conflict with the law. Since the child, Moiz, is a U.S. citizen who is neither abandoned nor in distress and is being adopted by relatives, the legal framework of the JJ Act does not extend to him. The definition of “in-country” adoption under Regulation 2(15) cannot be interpreted to override the scope of the parent Act, and the delegated legislation (the Regulations) cannot create rights or procedures beyond what the JJ Act allows. Therefore, even if the adoption is treated as in-country, it must still comply with the provisions of the JJ Act, requirements which are not met in this case.

The Court further examined the Hague Convention and clarified that its provisions were being misinterpreted by the petitioners. Articles 5 and 17 of the Convention require that the receiving country (India) must guarantee the adopted child’s right to reside permanently within its territory. As Moiz remains a U.S. citizen, Indian authorities cannot provide such a guarantee under current immigration laws. Moreover, Articles 22 and 23 of the Hague Convention explicitly disallow private and relative inter-country adoptions that do not follow authorized procedures, thereby rendering this adoption incompatible with international norms. The Court ultimately suggested that the appropriate route would be either for the child to acquire Indian citizenship and then follow the Indian adoption process, or for the adoption to be carried out under U.S. law. However, the petitioners were unwilling to pursue these lawful alternatives.

ANALYSIS:

The Bombay High Court’s ruling underscores the rigidity of India’s statutory adoption framework under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the Adoption Regulations, 2022, particularly in cases involving foreign national children not categorized as "in need of care and protection." The Court made it clear that even relative adoptions involving willing biological parents and Indian relatives cannot circumvent the statutory requirements. In this case, despite the child’s familial ties to the petitioners and their intent to adopt him under the category of “relative adoption,” the child’s status as a U.S. citizen without legal abandonment rendered the JJ Act inapplicable. CARA’s refusal to register the petitioners was deemed valid since neither the Act nor the Regulations provide for such a legal arrangement involving a non-abandoned foreign national child.

Additionally, the Court's reliance on the Hague Convention highlights India's obligation to adhere to international norms that prevent unauthorized private or relative adoptions across borders. The judgment clarifies that any attempt to bypass authorized channels such as CARA’s prescribed procedures—violates not only domestic law but also India's commitments under international conventions. Importantly, the Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that humanitarian grounds or family ties should justify judicial intervention, emphasizing that statutory limitations cannot be overridden by equity-based pleas. By recommending lawful alternatives like U.S.-based adoption or the child's acquisition of Indian citizenship, the Court reaffirmed the need for compliance with structured legal pathways rather than ad hoc relief through writ jurisdiction.