The Karnataka High Court has held that the silence of a biological father, who declined to take a clear position on the adoption of his minor son, can be treated as implied consent for the adoption process.
The ruling arose from a case in which a divorced mother, having remarried, approached the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) along with her present husband to formally adopt her 16-year-old son. Although a family court at the time of divorce had granted her permanent custody and guardianship—recording that the biological father had relinquished all rights to custody and visitation—the State Adoption Resource Agency insisted on a written consent from the father before proceeding.
When the matter reached the High Court, the father’s counsel stated that he “would not like to take a definite stand” on the adoption. Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol, acting as amicus curiae, and Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath, representing CARA, submitted that the father’s refusal to clarify should be construed as implied consent, particularly since he had no legitimate grounds to oppose and the welfare of the child was paramount.
Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad concurred with these submissions, observing that failing to treat the father’s silence as consent would deprive the boy—who expressed his desire to be adopted by his mother and stepfather—of the complete benefits of being part of a family unit. The court ruled that the father’s silence amounted to consent for the adoption.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the State Adoption Resource Agency and the District Child Protection Unit to complete the adoption process. It further allowed the petitioners to use the court’s order as proof of the biological father’s consent before all authorities.
