Court rules referral of child to petitioner was contrary to Adoption Regulations 2022; no vested right arises from erroneous referral, but directs CARA to improve procedural safeguards.
In a significant judgment delivered on October 15, 2026, the Delhi High Court in the case of Sahil Gupta v. Union of India & Anr. clarified the legal position regarding inter-country adoption under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Adoption Regulations, 2022. The petitioner, a Non-Resident Indian residing in Singapore with two biological children, challenged the Central Adoption Resource Authority's (CARA) withdrawal of the referral of a female child ("Baby K") to him for adoption and the rejection of his application on grounds of ineligibility.
The Court held that under Regulation 5(7) of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, couples with two or more biological children are not eligible to adopt a "normal" child but may only be considered for "special needs" or "hard to place" children. Since the petitioner's Home Study Report (HSR) was revalidated in 2025-after the 2022 Regulations came into force-and indicated the petitioner had two biological children, he was statutorily ineligible to adopt Baby K, who was classified as a normal child by medical experts.
The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that acceptance of the child's referral and delay by CARA in issuing the No Objection Certificate (NOC) created a legitimate expectation or vested right to proceed with the adoption. It held that such expectation cannot override the statutory scheme, and that no estoppel can operate against clear statutory regulations. The judgment emphasized that the issuance of the NOC is not a mere formality and CARA is entitled to re-examine eligibility at this stage to ensure compliance with the law.
While acknowledging the emotional bond developed between the petitioner's family and Baby K during their interactions, the Court underscored that the "best interest of the child" principle must be balanced with the statutory framework governing adoption. Allowing exceptions based on such bonds would create uncertainty and inequity among prospective adoptive parents (PAPs).
The judgment also identified serious administrative lapses by CARA, including technical glitches during the migration of the adoption portal, erroneous referral despite ineligibility, delay in NOC processing, and incorrect status updates on the portal (such as marking the petitioner's application as "withdrawn" without consent). To address these issues, the Court issued detailed directions to CARA, including:
- - Verifying PAP eligibility strictly before referral and configuring the portal to prevent inconsistent referrals;
- - Conducting audits of profiles affected by portal migration to correct discrepancies;
- - Adhering to prescribed timelines for processing NOCs and communicating deficiencies clearly;
- - Ensuring accurate and transparent portal status updates with proper grievance redressal mechanisms;
- - Fixing accountability for lapses and issuing standard operating procedures to staff.
The Court dismissed the writ petition and vacated the interim status quo, directing CARA to take immediate steps for Baby K's lawful placement with eligible adoptive parents.
This judgment reinforces the primacy of the statutory adoption framework and eligibility criteria to safeguard the welfare of children awaiting adoption, balancing procedural fairness with the best interests of the child. It also serves as a reminder for adoption authorities to exercise due diligence and transparency to prevent undue distress to prospective parents and children alike.
Bottom Line:
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Adoption Regulations, 2022 - Inter-country adoption - Prospective adoptive parents having two biological children are ineligible to adopt a normal child under Regulation 5(7) - Mere referral of child by CARA and acceptance thereof do not create any vested right to adoption or to issuance of No Objection Certificate - Legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel cannot operate against statutory regulations - Court, however, issued directions to CARA to prevent erroneous referrals, ensure accurate portal status, and process NOCs in a time-bound manner.
Statutory provision(s):
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Sections 2(9), 3, 56, 57, 59, 61, 68; Adoption Regulations, 2022 Regulations 2(13), 2(25), 3, 5(7), 5(8), 10, 16(5), 17(1), 44, 45(2)
Sahil Gupta v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2999248
