1. Factual Background and Procedural History
The case of Abdulkadir Lokhandwala & Anr. v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors. arose from a complex cross-border adoption dispute involving the adoption of a minor male child, a U.S. citizen, by his Indian relatives residing in India.
The petitioners, Indian citizens domiciled in India, were unable to conceive and desired to adopt the child born to the petitioners’ relatives—Respondent Nos. 5 and 6—who are Indian citizens residing in California, USA. The child, born on 2 July 2019, held U.S. citizenship and passport. The biological parents sent the child to India on 12 October 2019, where he began residing with the petitioners.
The petitioners sought to formalize the adoption under Section 56(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”), treating it as a relative adoption. However, the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) refused to register them as prospective adoptive parents on its CARINGS web portal, contending that the Adoption Regulations do not permit the adoption of a foreign citizen child.
After failed administrative attempts, the petitioners filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 58/2021 before the District Court, Pune, which remained pending due to CARA’s refusal to issue approval. The uncertainty of the child’s legal status in India and the risk of his U.S. visa expiring compelled the petitioners to file Writ Petition No. 6658 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale reserved judgment on 7 July 2025 and pronounced it on 16 July 2025.
2. Identification of Legal Issues
The principal questions before the Court were:
- Whether the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the Adoption Regulations, 2022, apply to the adoption of a child who is a foreign citizen but born to Indian parents.
- Whether the proposed adoption between relatives, both Indian citizens, but involving a child of U.S. citizenship, qualifies as an “in-country adoption” under Regulation 2(15).
- Whether CARA is empowered to relax adoption guidelines under Regulation 63 in such exceptional circumstances.
- Whether the refusal by CARA violates any constitutional or fundamental rights of the petitioners or the child.
3. Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Submissions
- The petitioners argued that Section 56(2) of the JJ Act allows adoption between relatives irrespective of religion, and their case qualifies as an in-country relative adoption, as both the adoptive and biological parents are Indian citizens.
- They relied on Adoption Regulations 2017, asserting that the matter fell under Chapter III (In-Country Adoptions) rather than Regulation 23 (dealing with adoptions from foreign countries).
- Counsel contended that CARA wrongly applied Regulation 23, as the act is parent-centric, not child-centric, and the child resided in India, making it an Indian jurisdictional matter.
- They further contended that the Hague Convention applies only to institutional inter-country adoptions, not private or relative adoptions.
- Relying on Regulation 63, they urged CARA to exercise its discretionary powers in the child’s best interests and allow an exception.
- Emphasizing humanitarian concerns, counsel argued that the six-year-old child had integrated into Indian life and schooling, and any delay risked his becoming an illegal migrant.
CARA and Union of India’s Submissions
- CARA maintained that it is statutorily bound by the JJ Act and Adoption Regulations, which do not contemplate adoption of foreign nationals, regardless of the adoptive parents’ citizenship.
- It argued that AR 23 governs situations where an Indian citizen adopts a foreign child, and mandates completion of adoption procedures under the laws of the child’s country of origin (i.e., the USA).
- CARA also invoked Articles 5 and 17 of the 1993 Hague Convention, stating that the receiving state must ensure the child’s legal residence and citizenship status post-adoption.
- CARA suggested lawful alternatives — either adopt the child in the USA under U.S. law or apply for the child’s Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955, before proceeding with adoption under Indian law.
Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 (Biological Parents)
- Supported the petitioners, contending that the adoption was in-country and relative-based.
- Urged the Court to interpret the law liberally to allow such adoptions in the child’s best interests.
- Relied on prior Bombay High Court decisions such as Bronson Barthol Dias v. CARA (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1117), where Regulation 63 was invoked for equitable relief.
4. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Division Bench conducted an exhaustive review of the JJ Act, Adoption Regulations, and the Hague Convention, ultimately finding no legal basis for the petitioners’ claim.
- Applicability of JJ Act:
The Court held that the JJ Act applies exclusively to “children in need of care and protection” or “children in conflict with law” (Sections 2(13) and 2(14)). Since the child was neither orphaned, abandoned, nor surrendered, the JJ Act does not extend to him. - Scope of Section 56(2):
The Court clarified that Section 56(2) permitting relative adoptions cannot operate independently of the JJ Act’s applicability. To qualify, the child must first come within the Act’s ambit. - Interpretation of “In-Country Adoption” (Reg. 2(15)):
The term covers adoptions by Indian citizens residing in India, but as delegated legislation, the regulation cannot exceed the parent statute’s scope. Thus, even “in-country” adoptions must comply with the JJ Act’s requirements. - Regulation 23 and Foreign Citizenship:
The Court affirmed that Regulation 23 applies to cases where Indian citizens seek to adopt foreign children, requiring completion of formalities in the child’s country of citizenship (USA).
Since the petitioners had not completed U.S. adoption procedures, CARA rightly refused registration. - Non-Applicability of Relaxation Power (Reg. 63):
The Court distinguished Bronson Barthol Dias, holding that Regulation 63 was invoked in cases within the Act’s jurisdiction, i.e., where the children were covered under the JJ Act.
Here, the child’s foreign citizenship excluded him from the Act’s purview, rendering relaxation impermissible. - Hague Convention Interpretation:
Articles 5 and 17 of the Convention require assurance from the receiving state (India) that the child will be permitted to reside permanently. As the child remained a U.S. citizen, Indian authorities could not lawfully issue such assurance.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ contention that Articles 22 and 23 exclude private adoptions, clarifying that the Convention deems such adoptions incompatible to prevent trafficking and illegal procurement of children. - Absence of Constitutional Violation:
The Court categorically ruled that there is no fundamental right to adopt a foreign national child, nor any constitutional violation of the child’s rights.
5. Final Conclusion and Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that:
- The JJ Act, 2015, and Adoption Regulations, 2022, do not apply to the adoption of a foreign citizen child, even between Indian relatives.
- CARA’s refusal to process the adoption was legally valid and non-discriminatory.
- The petitioners may either:
- Adopt the child under U.S. adoption laws, or
- Apply for the child’s Indian citizenship and then proceed under the JJ Act.
- Adopt the child under U.S. adoption laws, or
Accordingly, the Rule was discharged, and the petition was dismissed.
FAQs:
1. Can Indian citizens adopt a foreign citizen child under Indian law?
No. The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 applies only to children in need of care and protection within India. Adoption of a foreign citizen child requires compliance with the laws of the child’s country of origin.
2. What is the difference between in-country and inter-country adoption?
In-country adoption involves an Indian citizen adopting a child residing in India. Inter-country adoption occurs when either the child or the parents are from different countries, requiring adherence to international conventions.
3. Does the Hague Convention apply to relative adoptions?
Yes, the Hague Convention governs all inter-country adoptions, including relative adoptions, to prevent child trafficking and ensure procedural safeguards.
4. Can CARA relax adoption regulations in exceptional cases?
CARA may exercise discretion under Regulation 63, but only in cases covered by the JJ Act. It cannot override statutory limitations concerning foreign citizen children.
5. What legal steps can Indian relatives take to adopt a foreign-born child?
They must first adopt the child under the foreign country’s law (e.g., U.S. law) or secure Indian citizenship for the child before proceeding with adoption under the JJ Act.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.