The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the Adoption Regulations, 2017, adoptive parents shall not be asked in the adoption order to execute any bond or make any investment in the name of the child, unless in special cases where the court may insist on special conditions for compliance.

1. A procedural question has been raised in this Foreign Adoption Petition. The question involves the legality, as also of advisability, of the usual requirement insisted upon by the adoption court for (i) investment by the proposed adopters in the name of, or for the benefit of, the child to be adopted and also (ii) placing of a deposit with the Prothonotary and Senior Master in fap 5917 lieu of a bond so as to ensure compliance with the directions of the court. There has also been a pending representation made to this court by Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) in connection with another matter, where for non-deposit of bond money of Rs.60,000/- as per the directions in the Judges Order, certified copy of the Judges Order allowing adoption was not issued by the Registry. By this representation, CARA has requested the court not to insist on any bond money or investment in the name of the child. Though this issue was earlier considered by this court in its order dated 29 October 2010 in Foreign Adoption Petition No.93 of 2010 after hearing CARA, I have thought it fit to have a relook at this issue, in the light of the notification issued by the Central Government on 4 January 2017, notifying Adoption Regulations, 2017. These Regulations inter alia mandate that adoptive parents shall not be asked in the adoption order to execute any bond or make any investment in the name of the child. The matter was accordingly notified on the board calling upon interested parties to make submissions, if they so desired. A special notice was also issued to CARA for making its submissions on the issue. No party has appeared in response to this notice and CARA has also not chosen to make appearance or present any submissions before the court. I have heard Mr. Rakesh Kapoor, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Vishal Kanade, learned counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae in the matter. This order disposes of the particular issue raised in the matter. By a separate order, the foreign adoption petition is allowed.

2. As a matter of practice, at the time of allowing adoption petitions, both Indian and foreign, this court has been directing adoptive parents to deposit monies in the name of the minors in India for adoptive parents from India and in their respective countries for nonresident Indian parents living abroad or foreign nationals. This court has also been directing deposit of bond money in the court by adoptive parents for ensuring compliance with various directions passed in the orders allowing adoption. This practice can be traced to the celebrated case of Laxmi Kant Pandey Vs. Union of India (1984)2 Supreme Court Cases 244), where the Supreme Court extensively laid down the principles, parameters and norms to be followed in cases of inter-country adoptions, where Indian children were adopted by foreigners living abroad. These directions were based on a Public Interest Petition complaining of malpractices and trafficking in children in the matter of such intercountry adoptions. The Court was inter alia of the view that in the circumstances which obtained when the Public Interest Petition was considered by the Court, it was imperative to introduce a condition in the order that the foreigner, who is appointed guardian of the minor, shall make a proper provision by way of either a deposit or a bond or otherwise to enable the child to be repatriated to India should it become necessary for any reason.

3. The matter was thereafter considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Foreign Adoption Petition No.254 of 2010. The Petitioner had in that case applied for adoption of an Indian female child of four and half years. The proposed adopters were Norwegian nationals. The learned Single Judge was of the view that since the minor was required to be sent out of the jurisdiction of this court, and in fact, out of this county, pursuant to the adoption, the welfare of the child was of prime concern. The learned Judge observed