The petitioner claims to be illiterate. She is unmarried. But, due to unfortunate circumstances, she became pregnant from her lover. She realises that she may not be in a position to bring up the child and so she desires to surrender the child to a recognised adoption placement agency, so that the child could be rehabilitated through adoption or foster care. She approached certain adoption placement agencies. But, she has been told that she will have to approach the Child Welfare Committee constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "JJ Act"} and the Rules framed there under. Essentially, her grievance arises from the operation of Rule 33(4) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 {for short "the Central Rules"}, which contemplates a deed of surrender, to be executed in a prescribed form, on a non-judicial stamp paper, in the presence of the Committee.

2. It is her case, that the said statutory prescription, as contained in the aforementioned Rule 33(4) of the Central Rules is inapplicable in the State of Kerala. Further, the Rule is unconstitutional, as it also violates the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reference is made in this regard to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Kanth Pandey v. Union of India {AIR 1984 SC 469} and the subsequent judgments on the same point by the Supreme Court, essentially clarifying or modifying, as the case may be, the directions issued in Laxmikanth Pandey's case. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a declaration that Rule 33

(4) the Central Rules to be void, illegal and unconstitutional. She further seeks an appropriate direction to the respondents not to insist on her personal appearance before the Child Welfare Committee, for the execution of a document of surrender.

3. The Union Government and the State Government are respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition. The Adoption Co-ordinating Committee and the Indian Council of Social Welfare are respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition.

4. Neither the Union Government nor the State Government has filed a counter affidavit in the case. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is affirmed that the chances of the petitioner being exploited in case she has to execute of surrender document before the Child Welfare Committee cannot be ruled out. It is contended that Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 33 the Central Rules is obnoxious to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Laxmikanth Pandey's case. It is further averred that the Indian Council of Social Welfare is an independent agency, appointed by the Central Adoption Resource Agency to conduct scrutiny of all applications submitted by the adopted parents to Courts of competent jurisdiction to appoint them as a Legal Guardian/Adopted Parents. The Indian Council of Social Welfare, it is averred, is duly recognised by the Supreme Court and all the other High Courts in the State and competent Courts, for the purpose of scrutinising the documents and filing representations in adoption cases. One of the primary responsibilities and duties of Indian Council of Social Welfare in conducting scrutiny of adoption cases is to verify and ascertain the genuineness and authenticity of surrender documents purportedly created by relinquishing parents. It is affirmed that, if on scrutiny, it is found that the documents of surrender are in accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court and the Central Adoption Resource Agency, then the 4th respondent would issue a positive scrutiny report recommending the prospective adoptive parents to be placed with the child. It is further contended that the present system being followed in the case of surrender of illegitimate child by its mother is perfectly legal and just. The confidentiality of the process is being maintained and even a remote possibility of leakage of relevant information a