JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The petitioners are Prospective Adoptive Parents (PAPs) within the meaning of Section 2(49) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, “the JJ Act”). They registered on the designated portal “Child Adoption Resource Information & Guidance System (CARINGS)” on September 20, 2019. At that juncture their composite age was less than 110 years.

2. A Home Study Report (HSR) was uploaded on October 20, 2019 and remained valid for three years.

3. The petitioners received two siblings as their first referral from the category of “hard-to-place” children. The elder sibling was twelve years and the younger was ten years on that date. The children were under the foster care of the petitioners from October 4, 2022 to the month of September, 2022. The elder of the two was not willing to live with her younger sibling, for which the petitioners registered a disruption case and returned the children, although the younger child all along wanted to live with the petitioners, which intention is reciprocated by the petitioners as well.

4. On September 23, 2022, the Adoption Regulations of 2022 came into force upon notification by the Central Government.

5. During pendency of the disruption proceedings, the HSR of the petitioners expired on or about October 20, 2022. Respondent nos. 4 and 6, the Specialised Adoption Agencies of West Bengal and Odisha (since the children are from Odisha), took no efforts to revalidate the HSR within the stipulated time-line as per Regulation 30(3)(d) and Regulation 30(3)(m) as per the contention of the petitioners. The petitioners applied on November 17, 2022 for revalidation of the HSR as per Regulation 5(8). The composite age of the petitioners was then 109 years.

6. It is relevant to mention that a composite age of 110 years of the PAPs is the outer limit for taking hard-to-place children in adoption under the Regulations.

7. On January 4, 2023, the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) informed the petitioners through e-mail that the disruption proceedings were completed and they had been matched with the younger child and that subsequent steps for adoption were under process. Since the HSR was yet to be revalidated, the petitioners all along followed up the same.

8. However, on March 27, 2023, the respondent no.4-Agency decided not to recommend the case for re-adoption of the younger sibling on the ground that the PAPs had reserved siblings from Odisha and then returned them without counselling and the language used for the children was very harsh. The non-revalidation of the petitioners' HSR was also one of the grounds.

9. The respondent no.2, CARA, informed the petitioners on June 2, 2023 that their request for re-adoption of the younger child was not approved in view of the concerns raised by respondent nos. 3 and 4 that is the State Adoption Resource Authority (SARA) and the local adoption agency.

10. Challenging such decision, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition.

11. One of the grounds on which the respondent no.4 has objected is that the petitioners have now crossed the cumulative upper age limit of 110 years for taking adoption.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the JJ Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted for the best interest of the child, adoptive parents and also the society at large. It is to ensure that all the needs of children are met and their basic human rights are protected. Section 3 of the Act incorporates the principles of best interest whereby all decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the child, in order to help the child to develop full potential. The principles of positive measures are incorporated in Section 3(vii) and non-waiver of rights in Section 3(xi).

13. Regulation 3 of the 2022 Regulations lays down the fundamental principles governing adoption. Cause (a) states that the child's best int