Back
Quashes CWC Order Declaring Child Abandoned Despite DNA Proof of Biological Parents
Introduction
In a significant ruling on child adoption procedures, the has set aside a (CWC) order that declared an infant "abandoned" and directed that he be placed for adoption, despite a DNA test establishing the biological parentage of the child. Justice Krishna Rao, presiding over Writ Petition No. W.P.A. 24620 of 2025, quashed the CWC's decision of , holding that the committee had failed to conduct the under the . The Court ordered fresh inquiry, custodial transfer back to the CWC, and directed that the biological parents be given a proper hearing.
The Child Found in a Drain
On , a newborn male infant was discovered lying injured in a narrow lane near a drain in the Manicktala area of Kolkata. Local residents rescued the child and took him to the police station, where a man named Ritam Das claimed to be the biological father. The infant, later named RIBHU, was admitted to R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital with multiple injuries. Asmita Poddar then arrived at the hospital, asserting she was the mother and requesting that her name and Ritam Das's be recorded in hospital records. However, doctors refused to document the parentage to avoid complications.
The took custody of RIBHU and placed him in a (SAA). Poddar filed a prior writ petition (W.P.A. No. 12471 of 2024), which was disposed of on , with a direction that the CWC consider her prayer for return of the child in accordance with law. During the proceedings, the CWC requested a DNA test; the report confirmed Poddar and Ritam Das as the biological parents. Despite this, the CWC did not provide a hearing to the parents and, on , declared the child "abandoned," the parents "," and directed the SAA to proceed with the (LFA) process.
The CWC's Order and the Police Investigation
The CWC's order relied on the fact that the child was found in a drain with injuries and that the biological parents had failed to explain the circumstances. The Chairperson of the CWC had earlier lodged a complaint with police, leading to an FIR under against the mother and others. Police investigation ultimately cleared Asmita Poddar of any offence. According to the final report, the child's maternal grandmother, Lakshmi Poddar, had dropped the newborn in a narrow lane in the absence of the mother, allegedly due to her disapproval of the relationship and marriage between Asmita and Ritam Das. Lakshmi Poddar died during investigation, leading to a closure report against her and discharge for Asmita.
The CWC, however, ignored the DNA report and the police findings. The petitioner learned of the CWC's November 2024 decision only on , through the , prompting her to file the present writ petition.
Arguments Before the Court
Petitioner's counsel, , contended that the CWC had not afforded any to the petitioner despite her repeated claims and representations. He pointed out that the DNA test was conducted at the CWC's own request and confirmed parentage, yet the committee proceeded to declare the child abandoned. He also emphasized that the police final report favoured the petitioner and that the CWC's order was based on speculation rather than evidence.
On behalf of the CWC, defended the order, arguing that the committee acted in the , given the serious injuries and abandonment circumstances. He noted that the child was found in a drain, and that the committee had followed the statutory formalities, including newspaper publication. He cited the 's decision in Temple of Healing v. Union of India (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1590) to argue that "" can include parents who are unable or unwilling to provide care. The State counsel, , submitted that the police had conducted a DNA test at the CWC's request and found the petitioner to be the biological mother, but also noted that the mother's complicity was under investigation, which ultimately resulted in a closed case.
The Court's Legal Analysis
Justice Rao scrutinized the CWC's procedure and found multiple substantive failures. The Court observed that the CWC had not produced any record demonstrating that it conducted the inquiry mandated by
, which defines an "
" as one
"deserted by his biological or adoptive parents or guardians, who has been declared as abandoned by the Committee after due inquiry."
Since Poddar and Das had consistently claimed the child from the beginning, the Committee was required to trace them and conduct a thorough inquiry before any abandonment declaration.
The Court also emphasized that
requires the Committee to make all efforts to trace parents and, only after completion of such inquiry, declare the child
. The
explicitly states that
"no first information report shall be registered against any biological parent in the process of inquiry relating to an abandoned or surrendered child under this Act."
Here, instead of undertaking the proper inquiry, the CWC initiated a criminal case against the biological mother, which the Court viewed as a violation of the statutory scheme.
Regarding the declaration of the parents as "" under , the Court held that the Committee had not examined the physical and mental health of the parents, substance abuse history, neglect or abuse records, living environment, financial stability, or criminal record. No social investigation report, as contemplated under , was obtained. The Committee simply relied on the injuries and the circumstances of the child's discovery, without giving the parents any opportunity to present their side.
The Court also noted that the CWC had taken note of the earlier High Court order's observation that
"proof of maternity alone in this case, would not entitle the mother to take back the child,"
but failed to consider the later part of that order which directed the CWC to decide the prayer for return "in accordance with law."
Key Observations
Justice Rao's reasoning is captured in several crucial passages:
-
"The CWC has not produced any record to say that the committee has conducted inquiry."
-
"The Committee has passed the impugned order only on the basis that the child was found from drain with several injuries."
-
"Since beginning the petitioner as well as Ritam Das is claiming to be the biological parents."
-
"Instead of making an inquiry initiated a case against the petitioner. After initiating FIR, against the petitioner, CWC declared the child as abandoned, the parents as and the child ."
-
"This Court finds that the CWC has not followed the procedure in accordance with the Act of 2015 and have also not provided any to the petitioner before declaring the child as abandoned, declaring the parents as and the child free for legal adoption."
The Decision and Its Implications
The quashed the CWC's order of , and set aside all consequential actions regarding the child's custody. The Court directed the adoptive parents to surrender the child to the CWC by , and ordered the CWC to place the child in an SAA immediately pending fresh inquiry. The CWC was instructed to conduct a fresh inquiry within four weeks, providing an to the biological parents and calling for a report from the investigating agency.
The writ petition was allowed, and the Court refused the CWC's request for a stay of the judgment.
This ruling reinforces the paramount importance of in child welfare matters. It serves as a reminder to Child Welfare Committees across the country that declaring a child abandoned or parents cannot be done casually or without a comprehensive, evidence-based inquiry. The decision protects the rights of biological parents to be heard and ensures that adoption processes are not used to circumvent procedural safeguards.
The case is a landmark for its emphasis on the interplay between the Juvenile Justice Act's inquiry provisions and the rights of parents, even in distressing circumstances. It also clarifies that registration of an FIR against a biological parent during the inquiry process is prohibited under the , a safeguard designed to protect parents from unnecessary criminalisation while their fitness is being objectively assessed.
Case: , decided on .
