SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 2672

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
R. Chandrasekar - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, Central Adoption Resource Agency, Ministry of Women & Child Development, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD)No. 11479 of 2021
Decided On : 08-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:T. Arul, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, L. Victoria Gowri, Assistant Solicitor General of India, R3, R.J. Karthick, Advocates.

The statutory nature of adoption regulations and the rationality of eligibility criteria, along with the possibility of seeking relaxation for exceptional cases through the designated committee.

Headnote:

Adoption - Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - Regulation 5 - The court discussed the eligibility criteria for prospective adoptive parents, particularly focusing on the maximum composite age of the couple and its impact on the adoption of a child below 4 years. The court highlighted the statutory nature of Adoption Regulations, 2017 and referred to a previous judgment upholding the guidelines. The court emphasized the welfare of the child and the rationality of the age criteria, while also acknowledging the possibility of seeking relaxation through the Relaxation Committee of CARA.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a practicing advocate, and his wife sought to adopt a child below 2 years but were deemed ineligible due to the composite age of the couple being above 90, as per the Adoption Regulations, 2017. The petitioner challenged this eligibility criterion, citing issues with his seniority status and seeking permission for adoption.

Finding of the Court:

The court acknowledged the sensitivity of adoption and the statutory nature of the eligibility criteria. It recognized the rationality of the age criteria and the possibility of seeking relaxation through the Relaxation Committee of CARA. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Committee for consideration of his case within eight weeks.

Issues: The primary issue was the eligibility of the petitioner and his wife to adopt a child below 2 years based on the composite age criterion set out in the Adoption Regulations, 2017. The petitioner also raised concerns about his blocked seniority status affecting his ability to reserve a child for adoption.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the statutory nature of the Adoption Regulations, 2017 and upheld the rationality of the age criteria for prospective adoptive parents. It also highlighted the possibility of seeking relaxation through the Relaxation Committee of CARA for exceptional cases.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the petitioner was directed to approach the Relaxation Committee of CARA for consideration of his case within eight weeks.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner for selecting the child on adoption from the age group of 0 to 2 years.)

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the Madurai Bench appearing for the first respondent.

2. The petitioner is a practicing advocate. He got married on 06.07.2006. Since no child was born through the wedlock in spite of medical intervention, the petitioner and his wife Mrs.Sujatha decided to adopt a child through the respondents. They registered themselves with the first respondent on 10.01.2017. The third respondent prepared the home study report and found the couple suitable to adopt. On 13.02.2019, a male child born on 07.08.2018 was shown. The petitioner did not reserve the child. On 14.08.2019, another male child was shown and that was also not reserved by the petitioner. A third child born on 05.12.2018 was shown on 14.10.2019 but again the petitioner failed to reserve it.

3. The petitioner is aged about 49 years. His wife is aged below 45 years. They are anxious to adopt a child that is below two years. Since the composite age of the adoptive parents has crossed 90 years, as per the regulations, they are eligible to a child that is above 4 years. That led to the filing of this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The petitioner's grievance is that when his seniority status was verified in March 2019, it was found blocked. It was restored only in August 2019 after the petitioner submitted an application for retention of the seniority. The petitioner alleges that as a result of deletion from the seniority for five months, he has been prevented from making a choice in the intervening period. The learned counsel would submit that since the petitioner's wife is below 45 years, the couple can be allowed to choose a child aged between 0-2.

5. The first respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. The learned ASG took me through its contents. According to them, the Adoption Regulations, 2017 clearly stated that if the composite age of the prospective adoptive parents is above 90 years, then, child below 4 years cannot be given in adoption. In the counter affidavit, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. According to the learned ASG, the petitioner is to be blamed himself for the situation. She pressed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. Adoption is a sensitive and sentimental subject. Though India is a multi-religious and pluralistic society, the personal law of Hindus alone recognizes adoption. The personal laws of other religions do not provide for adoption. Humanity is one and childless couples irrespective of their religious background would feel alike. Sections 56 to 73 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 dealing with adoption is a secular response to this challenge and which is free of all trappings of religion. Article 44 of the Constitution of India mandates that the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. I see Chapter VIII of the said Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder as effectuating the constitutional vision to have a secular civil law for all in the matter of adoption.

7. Adoption Regulations, 2017 were notified in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of Section 68 r/w. clause 3 of Section 2 of the Act. They are statutory in character. Regulation 5 sets out the eligibility criteria for prospective adoptive parents. Regulation 5 is as follows:

5. Eligibili

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top