The court established that adoptions under HAMA, 1956 are valid and irreversible, and are not subject to the provisions of the J.J. Act, 2015. The court also clarified that the Passport Authority cannot question the validity of an adoption at the time of passport issuance.

JUDGMENT

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to issue a passport to the petitioner by dispensing with the requirement of 'No Objection Certificate' from respondent No.3, i.e. the Central Adoption Resource Authority (hereinafter referred as 'the CARA') which is being taken up through Video Conferencing due to COVID-19.

2. The petitioner-Jasmine Kaur was born on 15.11.2017 in India to her natural parents Mr.Manohar Lal & Mrs. Gian Kaur. It is significant to mention here that twin daughters were born to Mr.Manohar Lal & Mrs. Gian Kaur. Gian Kaur is the real sister of Mrs.Balbir Kaur, an NRI, OCI card holder and citizen of United Kindgom, aged 53 years, wife of Paramjit Singh, is a permanent resident of 250, Park Avenue, Southhall Middlesex UB 13AW UK. The petitioner was adopted by above mentioned Balbir Kaur and Paramjit Singh from her natural parents as per Sikh rites and ceremonies which were performed at Gurudwara Shaheedan Singhan Ji, Village Thalla, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar and a certificate to this effect was also issued. Pursuant to the adoption ceremony, a registered adoption deed was also executed on 16.11.2018 between the natural and adoptive parents of the petitioner. The petitioner was adopted as per the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as 'the HAMA,1956'). The petitioner has applied for issuance of passport vide Passport Application No.JA2063095726618 alongwith all the relevant documents but the same was refused by the Passport Authority, i.e. respondent No.2 on the ground that NOC from CARA/FERA or photocopy from Recognized Indian Placement Agency (RIPA) is required.

3. It is inter-alia contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that passport is being denied to the minor petitioner primarily due to the lack of a No Objection Certificate from CARA. It is argued that Section 56(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 (hereinafter referred as 'the J.J. Act, 2015') very clearly states that the provisions of the said Act would not be applicable to the adoption of children made under the provisions of the HAMA,1956. It is contended that the petitioner-Jasmine Kaur has been adopted under the adoption deed which is a duly executed document and the said adoption is under the provisions of HAMA, 1956 and, therefore, the question of getting a 'No Objection Certificate' from CARA would not arise.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the UOI states that it is a mandatory procedure for the adoption to be ratified by CARA, even though Section 56(3) of the J.J. Act 2015 states that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 would not be applicable to an adoption under the HAMA, 1956.

5. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.06.2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, Mr.Anil Malhotra, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case to assist the Court on account of his experience in dealing with such issues.

6. In pursuance to the said order, Mr.Anil Malhotra, learned Amicus Curiae filed his report. Reply has also been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e. Union of India and Regional Passport Office. Separate reply has also been filed by respondent No.3-CARA.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, three issues arise in the present writ petition:

1. Whether the adoption under HAMA, 1956 is valid and whether Section 56 of the J.J. Act, 2015 is applicable in the facts of the present case and the adoption in the present case can only be made under the J.J. Act, 2015?

2. Whether an NOC from CARA, i.e. respondent No.3 is mandatory as per the mandate of Section 60 of the J.J. Act, 2015 for direct inter-country relative adoption?

3. Whether respondent No.2 can refuse to issue a passport beyond the statutory provisions of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967?

8. In order to adjudicate upon Issue No.1, it is necessary to reproduce Sect