(2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 735
H.S. BEDIAND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.
LAKSHMIKANTPANDEY ……Petitioner;
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ……Respondents.
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 19152 of 2009 in WP (Crl.) No. 1171 of 1982
Decided on : April 29, 2010
Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India – Referred
Facts of the case:
By the present application the Missionaries of Charity has referred to the difficulties being faced by adoptive parents coming from abroad and it has been highlighted that many Indian courts were not accepting documents executed and authenticated abroad, with the result that the adoption of children by foreign parents was being delayed. It has also been pointed out that the procedure needed to be simplified more particularly in the light of the fact that India had accepted the policy of 15-10-1961 called the "Hague Apostille Convention" which had been enforced with effect from 1965. It has also been pointed out that as India is a signatory to the Convention, the procedure prescribed therein should also be adopted in the execution of the adoption documents by foreign parents.
Finding of the Court:
Prayer in the petition deserves to be allowed.
Result:
Petition allowed.
ORDER
1. This application has been filed by the Missionaries of Charity, a society established by the late Mother Teresa. One of the areas where the Society renders yeoman's service is the upbringing of orphans and children born out of wedlock and to rehabilitate such children and to take steps for their adoption with families both in India and abroad.
2. The adoption of children in India is governed by the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act but the procedure for the adoption of Indian children by foreign families has been provided by this Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India. Under this procedure applications are to be filed by the intending adoptive parents in Indian courts, which on an evaluation of the evidence on record, make suitable orders.
3. By the present application the Missionaries of Charity has referred to the difficulties being faced by adoptive parents coming from abroad and it has been highlighted that many Indian courts were not accepting documents executed and authenticated abroad, with the result that the adoption of children by foreign parents was being delayed. It has also been pointed out that the procedure needed to be simplified more particularly in the light of the fact that India had accepted the policy of 15-10-1961 called the "Hague Apostille Convention" which had been enforced with effect from 1965. It has also been pointed out that as India is a signatory to the Convention, the procedure prescribed therein should also be adopted in the execution of the adoption documents by foreign parents.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in the light of the fact that the welfare and benefit of children is the primary concern of this Court and of the counsel as well and in the light of the facts that have been pointed out, we deem it appropriate that the procedure prescribed in the Hague Apostille Convention be accepted and followed by the Indian courts while dealing with the adoption of children by foreign parents.
5. We also see that along with the application, Annexure I-A dated 14-5-2008 has been filed whereby the Ministry of External Affairs has issued directions to its High Commissions and Embassies that as India was a signatory to the Convention with effect from 29-8-2007, the procedure prescribed therein should be followed for authenticating documents. We see absolutely no reason that as to why documents executed under this procedure should not be acceptable to courts in India and taken into evidence for the purpose of adoption.
6. We accordingly allow this application in terms of Prayer clauses (a) and (b) which are as under:
(a) Direct the courts of competent jurisdiction dealing with adoption/guardianship cases to accept documents authenticated by officers competent to issue certification by "Apostille" in the country of their execution as provided and covenanted in the Hague Apostille Convention;
(b) Direct the court of competent jurisdiction to hear and dispose of cases in accordance with the time frame fixed in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India.
7. The criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed in the above terms.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.