The High Court of Delhi has directed the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the relocation of a minor child adopted under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956. The Court held that for adoptions concluded under HAMA prior to the 2021 Adoption Regulations, CARA is legally mandated to facilitate compliance with the Hague Convention requirements rather than issuing mere “Support Letters.”
The Delhi High Court was moved by adoptive parents aggrieved by CARA’s refusal to issue an NOC for their child’s relocation to Canada. The court ruled that under the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021, and the subsequent 2022 Regulations, CARA has a statutory duty to liaise with foreign authorities to facilitate relocation for HAMA-adoptees. The petition was disposed of with directions to CARA to fulfill its obligations under the Hague Convention.
Background
The case involved Petitioner No. 1, a minor child born in 2018, who was adopted in September 2019 by Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 (the adoptive parents) according to Sikh customs. Petitioner No. 2 is an Indian citizen with permanent residency in Canada, while Petitioner No. 3 is a Canadian citizen and an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder.
Following the execution of an Adoption Deed under HAMA in February 2021, the parents sought to relocate the child to Canada. They initiated the procedure under Regulation 22B of the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021. While the District Magistrate, Ferozepur, provided the necessary verification reports in April 2022, CARA issued a “Support Letter” in November 2022 instead of an NOC. Subsequently, the CARA portal reflected the application as “Rejected” with the remark: “The matter cannot be taken up as it is related to HAMA.”
Arguments of the Parties
The Petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Ms. Nandita Rao, argued that under Regulation 22B, once the District Magistrate furnished the verification report, CARA was bound to issue an NOC, especially since Canada is a signatory to the 1993 Hague Convention. They contended that refusal to issue the NOC undermined the principle of the “best interest of the child,” which is paramount in adoption matters.
Conversely, the Respondents (Union of India and CARA) argued that the adoption occurred before the 2021 Regulations were notified. They claimed that the parents failed to submit requisite certificates under Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention. Furthermore, they asserted that CARA’s jurisdiction is confined to adoptions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and that HAMA adoptions fall outside its purview, making a “Support Letter” the only permissible action.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Sachin Datta examined Chapter IV-A of the 2021 Regulations, titled “Procedure for children adopted under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 by parents who desire to relocate the child abroad.” The Court observed that the language of the regulations is “unambiguous” and clearly intended to govern situations where parents seek to relocate a child adopted under HAMA.
Referring to Regulation 22B(2) and (3), the Court noted that once verification is received, CARA is responsible for complying with the provisions of Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention. Justice Datta remarked:
“It is thus, untenable for CARA to abdicate its responsibility by issuing a mere support letter instead of pursuing the matter with the concerned authorities of the recipient State and issuing an NOC upon conclusion of such formalities.”
The Court further rejected the contention that HAMA adoptions are outside CARA’s authority, stating:
“The language of the afore-quoted Regulations leaves no manner of doubt that they clearly delineate and cast obligations on CARA in respect of adoptions already concluded under HAMA, 1956… The Regulations expressly mandate that in such a situation, CARA ‘shall comply’ with the provisions of Article 5 and/or 17 of the Hague Convention.”
The Court also highlighted that communications between CARA and Canadian authorities showed a “misconception” by officials. Emails suggested that CARA officials asked if the HAMA adoption could be “reversed/revoked” so the parents could proceed under the JJ Act, a stance the Court found contrary to the applicable regulatory framework.
The Decision
The High Court held that CARA is under a statutory obligation to facilitate the relocation process for children adopted under HAMA prior to the 2021 Regulations. It noted that Article 7 of the Hague Convention requires Central Authorities to cooperate to protect children and achieve the convention’s objects.
The Court directed CARA to:
- Appropriately liaise with Canadian authorities to convey the correct regulatory and statutory position as set out in the judgment.
- Formally request Canadian authorities to expeditiously conclude the exercise as contemplated under Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention.
- Issue an NOC to the petitioners immediately upon the conclusion of the aforesaid exercise.
The Court concluded that since there was no objection from CARA regarding the validity of the adoption itself, the agency must actively facilitate the child’s relocation to Canada in her best interest.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Gur Kaur Minor & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
- Case No.: W.P.(C) 16096/2024
- Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
- Date: April 20, 2026
