JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to issue directions to the respective Visa Issuing Authorities that Certificate from Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) is not mandatory in view of an order of a Court under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as „the HAMA Act‟) from a Competent Court and further for a direction to respondent No.3, i.e., Ministry of External Affairs to issue a passport to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was born on 15.01.2004. The biological parents of the petitioner are Shri Raj Kumar Arora and Smt Neeru Arora. The petitioner was adopted by his paternal uncle and aunt, i.e., the elder brother of Shri Raj Kumar Arora and his wife, namely, Shri Dalip Kumar Arora and Smt Vaishali Arora. Formalities and ceremonies for adoption were performed on 26.01.2015. A registered Adoption Deed was executed on 27.01.2015. The adoptive parents, who were married since 11.07.2008, did not have any child despite undergoing various medical procedures. The adoption of the petitioner was ratified by the Court of District & Sessions Judge (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in a Guardianship Petition No.01/2015 by judgment dated 28.05.2015.

3. The adoptive parents of the petitioner are German citizens with Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status and live in Hannover, Germany.

4. As per the petitioner, since the adoption was an inter-country adoption, the parents of the petitioner approached CARA, as directed by the German Consulate at Delhi. CARA refused to assist the petitioner’s parents but required them to apply through proper channel for adoption on the premise that CARA was the Central Authority regulating inter-country adoptions, which were guided by the provisions of The Hague Convention, 1993 and accordingly, the parents would require a No Objection Certificate from CARA prior to applying for a visa and for such a Certificate they had to make an application for adoption with CARA. The parents of the petitioner allege to have approached CARA various times but there was no response or assistance from them.

5. It is contended that despite the fact that there is a valid adoption of the petitioner by the adoptive parents and there is a Deed of Adoption dated 27.01.2015 and a judgment of the Competent Court dated 28.05.2015 ratifying the adoption, CARA has required the parents of the petitioner to go through a cumbersome process by making an application for adoption to CARA.

6. It is contended that reliance placed by CARA on the guidelines of 2015, which were notified on 17.07.2015 under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which in itself was effective on 01.01.2016, the said Act is not applicable to adoption of children made under the provisions of HAMA Act.

7. It is further contended that the guidelines of 2015 are not applicable, first of all, because they were notified after the adoption in the present case on 27.01.2015 and would only cover an orphan, abandoned or surrendered child and does not covered inter-country direct adoptions. It is contended that the present case is not only of an inter-country direct adoption but an adoption within the family.

8. The respondents have contended that it is mandatory for the adoptive parents to obtain the agreement/approval of the Central Authority concerned in Germany as well as the NOC (agreement) of CARA under Article 17 of The Hague Convention on Prevention of Children & Cooperation in respect of Inter-Country Adoption, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Hague Adoption Convention).

9. It is denied that the parents of the petitioner, ever, approached CARA for any NOC. It is contended that the parents of the petitioner need to make an application for grant of an NOC along with, inter alia, (i) Home Study Report of the adoptive parents from the Central Authority of Hamburg in Germany with supporting documents, (ii) letter from the Central Authority