ORDER :

The petitioners/husband and wife are before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners through electronic mail and redress the grievance. The grievance is concerning cross-border adoption of a child.

2. Sans details, facts in brief germane are as follows:-

The petitioners are husband and wife; citizens of India. Presently they are in Nairobi, Kenya. The husband is working as Vice-President, Africa in Intellect Design Arena Limited, Nairobi. The wife is a software Engineer working in Kenya. The petitioners between 2011 and 2018 were residents of Uganda and later shifted to Kenya from 2019 and even today they hold Indian passport as they have not renounced Indian citizenship. During the time they were staying in Uganda, the petitioners became desirous of adopting a child and in such pursuit of adoption, after following all due procedures took steps with the prevailing law in Uganda to get a child which matched them. The child who was taken in adoption on 12-08-2014 is Master Kris Bright Kumar. The petitioners then filed an application before the jurisdictional Family and Children Court at Makindye, Kampala, Uganda seeking conferment of a care order under the applicable laws of Uganda. The concerned Court grants the care of the child in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, the High Court of Uganda in Family division grants guardianship of the child in favour of the petitioners as on 20-07-2015. It is averred that the child is in the care of the petitioners and undergoing schooling at Kampala. The petitioners then filed an application for formal adoption before the High Court of Uganda, again under the applicable laws. It is declared by the concerned Court at Uganda that the petitioners are adoptive parents of the child and were granted all consequential rights upon the petitioners over the child.

3. The petitioners then desirous of adoption to become formal in India, in order to conduct their actions in compliance with the Regulations, preferred an application before the 1st respondent – Central Adoption Resource Authority (‘CARA’ for short) to grant legal sanctity in India for the said adoption in the light of both the petitioners being Indian citizens as of today. This is not acceded to by accepting or rejecting in answer to mails communicated by the husband/1st petitioner. It is, therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus.

4. Heard Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that inter-country adoption is a recognized norm pursuant to Hague Convention of 1995. Uganda is not a signatory to Hague Convention. Therefore, CARA Regulations or the Juvenile Justice Act does not impede the process of adoption to be regularized in this country when the child is at the receiving country pursuant to Hague Convention. It is his submission that India being a signatory to Hague Convention cannot deny regularization of adoption. He would submit that lacunae in the law be filled up by an order of this Court, as it is a circumstance that has never arisen before any Court of law.

6. Per-contra, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan would take this Court through the statement of objections to contend that the Government is not wanting to jeopardize the rights of the petitioners or render the child illegal without legalizing the adoption. He would seek that the objections would indicate that the parents would be issued a support letter. A support letter would be enough in the circumstances for necessary entry and exit into the shores of the nation. He would submit that if the procedure is appropriately followed, a no objection