The Kerala High Court has quashed the one-year debarment imposed on a couple from adopting a child, ruling that the decision was arbitrary and lacked due consideration.

The Court emphasized the need for a compassionate and holistic approach in adoption matters rather than rigid adherence to procedural formalities. "We are not dealing with a commercial dispute where strict adherence to deadlines is necessary; rather, we are dealing with the emotions of an adoptive couple whose profound desire for a child has persisted for four years. Adoption matters demand a progressive and compassionate approach that prioritizes the child's best interests over procedural rigidity," the Court stated.

The Single Bench of Justice C.S. Dias, while delivering the judgment, referred to Section 59(6) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Adoption Regulations, 2022.

The Bench stated that child study reports and medical examination reports of legally adoptable children must be uploaded on the Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System (CARINGS) platform, as mandated by law.

The Court underscored that prospective parents can make informed decisions only after reviewing these reports, as they are not permitted to physically meet the child before adoption.

Case Background

The petitioners, a couple with a five-year-old adopted son, sought to adopt a daughter and registered on CARINGS. They received three referrals but did not reserve the first two children, as they preferred adoption from Kerala. For the third referral, the child's medical examination report was not accessible on the platform. The couple had to request the specialized adoption agency to provide it via email.

However, by the time they received and reviewed the report, the child's profile was removed, and they were debarred from adoption for one year for failing to reserve a child from the three referrals.

Court’s Observations

The petitioners argued that the 48-hour reservation period should begin only after they had access to the medical examination report. The Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI), representing the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), contended that the petitioner failed to reserve a child within the stipulated timeframe and could not be selective in the adoption process, given the long waiting list of over 32,000 prospective parents.

The Court, however, found that the debarment order was issued without granting the couple a hearing and was made without proper application of mind. It held that the 48-hour window for reserving a child should begin only after the medical examination report is made available to the prospective adoptive parents.

The Single Bench emphasized that adoption cases should not be treated as mere legal formalities but with empathy and human consideration. The Court cited Regulation 63 of the Adoption Regulations, which allows the Relaxation Committee of CARA to make exceptions in deserving cases. "Regulation 63 empowers the Relaxation Committee of the Authority to relax and grant exceptions to any provision of the regulations in respect of a case or class of cases. This Regulation indicates that the Regulations are not strictly. mandatory but rather directory in nature, allowing for its relaxation in deserving cases. On an overall consideration of the law and the peculiar facts of this case, notwithstanding the alternative remedy of appeal provided in the Regulations, I am convinced that this a fit case to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to quash Exts.P4 and P11 orders and direct the 2nd respondent to refer one more child to the petitioner," it said.

Conclusion

The Court quashed the debarment order and directed CARA to refer a child’s profile to the couple for adoption consideration. "The 2nd respondent is directed to refer a profile of a child to the petitioner and his wife within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, in accordance with the law, to enable them to exercise their option to adopt the child," the Single Judge ordered.

Cause Title: Lijo Stephen Chacko v. Union of India [Neutral Citation No. 2025: KER: 8856]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates K.N.Abhilash, Sunil Nair Palakkat, Rishi Varma T.R., Rithik S.Anand, N.K.Sheeba, V.Sreejith, K.M.Tintu, Anu Paul, Sreelakshmi Menon P, Sreejith A

Respondent: Deputy Solicitor General of India T C Krishna

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice CS DiasJuvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act 2015

Sukriti Mishra

    Sukriti Mishra was a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She covered the Supreme Court. She completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022. She had previously worked with another legal news portal, where she covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.