Clearing the Path for Families: High Court Mandates NOC for Pre-2021 Adoptions

In a significant ruling aimed at resolving the procedural limbo faced by families, the High Court of Delhi has directed the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for a child adopted under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) prior to September 2021.

The decision by Justice Sachin Datta offers clarity on the retrospective application of the Adoption Regulations, emphasizing that established adoptions should not be obstructed by regulatory frameworks introduced years after the formal ceremony.

A Family Bond Caught in Bureaucracy

The case involved the adoption of four-year-old Alambir Singh Sidhu. The child was given in adoption by the biological parents (his uncle and aunt) to his adoptive parents—who are Australian citizens—in a ceremony held in February 2020 at a Gurudwara in Punjab.

Following the customary adoption, the parents registered an Adoption Deed and obtained necessary identification documents. However, when they approached CARA in late 2020 for the mandatory NOC required to transport the child to Australia, the requested document remained elusive. CARA contended that until 2021, it had no statutory role in HAMA adoptions and that the subsequent introduction of regulations (Chapter VIII) required strict compliance, including documentation that the petitioners were unable to produce under the new criteria.

Arguments of the Parties

The petitioners argued that their adoption was concluded in 2020, long before the 2021 and 2022 amendments came into force, and that they had already secured validation from the local District Magistrate. Furthermore, they highlighted that Australian authorities acknowledged the validity of the HAMA adoption, requiring only a support letter from CARA to facilitate the final inter-country settlement.

CARA, however, resisted issuing the NOC, citing two primary hurdles: 1. Procedural Requirements: The absence of documentation required by the Hague Convention (1993) under the 2022 Regulations. 2. Legal Validity of PoA: The claim that the General Power of Attorney used to facilitate the registration of the adoption deed was invalid under Queensland (Australia) law.

The Court’s Analysis: Upholding Customary Rights

The High Court categorically dismissed these objections. Referring to the Supreme Court’s recent directions in Prema Gopal v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors. , the Court affirmed that the authorities cannot retrospectively apply Adoption Regulations to invalidate adoptions that were performed in accordance with HAMA.

Addressing the challenge to the Power of Attorney, Justice Datta observed that the adoption was finalized in 2020, and the validity of the subsequent registration via PoA had already been accepted by registration authorities. The Court noted that even Australian authorities recognized the legitimacy of these documents, rendering CARA’s objection untenable.

Key Observations

Highlighting the importance of respecting established family ties, the Court observed:

> "The implication of the above is that concluded adoptions under HAMA, are required to comply with the extant requirements set out in HAMA itself, and cannot be retrospectively subject to any other extraneous requirements / pre-conditions."

> "It clearly envisages that the child can be adopted 'under the authority' of the parents... Actual adoption took place according to the Sikh rites in the presence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Child was given in adoption willingly by the natural parents and was taken in adoption by the adoptive mother through her Attorney."

> "As such, the respondent no. 2 is bound to follow the same procedure in the present case as well; after considering the certificate issued by the District Magistrate, the matter is required to be processed for issuance of a No Objection Certificate."

Implications for Future Cases

The Court’s order mandating that CARA issue the NOC within four weeks serves as a major relief for similar families trapped in regulatory overlap. By prioritizing the validity of HAMA adoptions and the welfare of the child over shifting administrative hurdles, the High Court has reinforced the principle that legal procedures should serve to protect family bonds, not obstruct them. This ruling sets an essential precedent for the recognition of pre-2021 HAMA adoptions within current international relocation frameworks.