Gur Kaur Minor & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr.

$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Pronounced on: 20.04.2026

+ W.P.(C) 16096/2024, CM APPLs.67638/2024 & 20198/2026
GUR KAUR MINOR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, Sr. Advocate along
with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Aditi
Singh, Mr. Karan Mishra and
Mr. Ankur Raghav, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC along
with Mr. Akash Pathak, GP, Ms.
Swati, Ms. Himanshi Singh and Ms.
Monalisa Pradhan, Advocates for
R-1 & R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the
following prayers:
“(i) Pass a Writ, Order, or Direction in Mandamus and direct the
Respondent No.2 to issue NOC to the Petitioners herein as stipulated in
Regulation 67(3) of the Adoption Regulations, 2022; and
(ii) Pass a Writ, Order, or Direction in Mandamus and direct Respondent
No. 2 provide a copy of the NOC to the Foreign Adoption Agency and
change the status of Petitioner No. 1’s Application bearing no.
RCAN201906122785 on the portal; and
(iii) Pass a Writ, Order, or Direction in Mandamus and declare the
actions of the Respondent No.2 in issuing a Support Letter instead of an
NOC as illegal; and
(iv) Award the costs of the present Petition in favour of the Petitioner;”

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of the Central Adoption
Resource Agency (CARA) to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 16096/2024 Page 1 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:20.04.2026
18:55:35

respect of the relocation application of petitioner no.1, a minor child adopted
by petitioner nos. 2 and 3.
3. The factual background of the present matter, as set forth by the
petitioners is that petitioner no.2 is an Indian Citizen holding Permanent
Resident Status in Canada and is the legally wedded wife of petitioner no. 3,
who is a Canadian citizen and an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI)
cardholder.
4. Petitioner no.1 (born on 02.03.2018), was adopted by petitioner nos. 2
and 3 (adoptive parents) in accordance with Sikh customs on 08.09.2019. A
passport bearing no. T7410837 was issued in the name of petitioner no.1 on
09.09.2019.
5. On 07.03.2019, the adoptive parents approached Cornerstone
Adoption Agency, Canada (the Foreign Adoption Agency) for the purpose
of relocating petitioner no.1 to Canada.
6. An Adoption Deed dated 08.02.2021 was executed under the Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA, 1956). Pursuant to the said
Adoption Deed, the Office of Civil Surgeon Moga, issued a birth certificate
in the name of petitioner no.1 on 12.07.2021, recording petitioner nos. 2 and
3 as adoptive parents.
7. Pursuant thereto, the adoptive parents, for the purpose of relocation of
petitioner no.1 to Canada, initiated the procedure as contemplated under
Regulation 22B of the of the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021
(hereinafter “2021 Regulations”). In terms thereof, the District Magistrate,
Ferozepur, Punjab, furnished a Verification Report dated 18.04.2022 as per
Schedule XXXIII and a Family Background Report as per Schedule XXXIV
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 16096/2024 Page 2 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:20.04.2026
18:55:35

of the said Regulations. The said reports are enclosed as Annexure-A5 to the
present petition.
8. On 22.11.2022, CARA issued a ‘Support Letter’ in the petitioners’
matter. The same is as under:

Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 16096/2024 Page 3 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:20.04.2026
18:55:35

9. Subsequently, vide e-mail dated 10.10.2023, the Foreign Adoption
Agency in Canada communicated to petitioner no.3 that the CARA portal
reflected the relocation application of petitioner no.1 as “Application
Rejected” with the remark that “The matter cannot be taken up as it is
related to HAMA”. The said e-mail dated 10.10.2023 reads as under:

10. The Foreign Adoption Agency further informed the petitioners that in
the absence of the requisite NOC from CARA, the petitioners’ application
could not be processed.
11. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed an application dated
29.12.2023 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), seeking
information regarding the status of the said relocation application before
CARA. The said application filed under the RTI Act was rejected under
Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act.
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 16096/2024 Page 4 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:20.04.2026
18:55:35

12. Thereafter, the petitioners addressed a legal notice to the CEO,
CARA, which, however, elicited no response.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of
Regulation 22B of Chapter IV-A of the Adoption (Amendment)
Regulations, 2021, once the verification report was furnished by the District
Magistrate, in terms of Schedule XXXIII of the said Regulations, CARA
was bound to comply with the provisions thereof. Considering that the
receiving country, i.e., Canada, is a signatory to the 1993 Hague Convention
on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry
Adoption (Hague Convention), CARA was required to issue an NOC.
Instead, CARA issued a ‘Support Letter’. It is further contended that the
rejection of the petitioners’ relocation application is contrary to the
Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021.
14. It is contended that the adoption under HAMA, 1956, being a valid
statutory adoption recognized under Indian law, cannot be disregarded. The
refusal of CARA to issue an NOC undermines the principle of best interest
of the child which is paramount in matters of adoption and relocation.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
present case pertains to an adoption that occurred prior to the notification of
the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021 dated 17.09.2021. It is
submitted that the adoptive parents (petitioner nos. 2 and 3) failed to comply
with the procedural requirements under Regulation 22B, including
submission of the requisite certificates as per Articles 5 and/or 17 of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 16096/2024 Page 5 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:20.04.2026
18:55:35

Hague Convention. In view of such non-compliance, CARA issued a
Support Letter on 22.11.2022, in place of an NOC.
16. It is further submitted that the jurisdiction of CARA is confined to
adoptions processed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter “Juvenile Justice Act”) and the Adoption
Regulations framed thereunder and that adoptions effected under HAMA,
1956 fall outside its purview. Therefore, in the absence of CARA’s authority
to issue NOC in respect of such adoptions, issuance of a Support Letter was
the only permissible course of action.
REASONING AND CONCLUSION
17. The language of Chapter IV-A of the Adoption (Amendment)
Regulations, 2021 is unambiguous. The caption / title of the said Chapter
IV-A reads as “Procedure for children adopted under the Hindu Adoption
and Maintenance Act, 1956 by parents who desire to relocate the child
abroad”. The language used in the title itself makes it abundantly clear that
the provisions contained in Chapter IV-A are intended to govern situations
such as the present case, where adoptive parents, having effected a valid
adoption under HAMA, 1956, seek to relocate the child abroad.
18. Regulation 22B of Chapter IV-A of the Adoption (Amendment)
Regulations, 2021 reads as under:
“22B. Procedure in the case of registered adoption deed .—(1) In the
cases where the adoption deed has already been executed in pursuance
of adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78
of 1956), before the commencement of the Adoption (Amendment)
Regulations, 2021, the requisite documents supporting the facts of the
adoption deed shall be duly verified and recommended by the District
Magistrate in the format as provided in Schedule XXXIII.
(2) On receipt of the verification of documents as per Schedule XXXIII,
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 16096/2024 Page 6 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:20.04.2026
18:55:35

the Central Adoption Resource Authority shall comply with the
provisions of Articles 5 or 17 from the receiving country as provided in

the Hague Adoption Convention.
(3) Upon receiving such certificate, the Central Adoption Resource
Authority shall issue no objection certificate for Hague ratified countries
and in cases of countries outside the Hague Convention on Protection of
Children and Co-operation in respect of Inter-country Adoption, a letter
accepting the said adoption from the Government department concerned
of the receiving country shall be sought by the Central Adoption
Resource Authority in order to issue the final support letter from the
Central Adoption Resource Authority.”

19. It is not disputed that petitioner no.1 was adopted by petitioner nos.2
and 3 under the HAMA, 1956 and that an Adoption Deed was executed in
pursuance thereof on 08.02.2021, prior to the commencement of the 2021
Regulations, which came into force on 17.09.2021. Evidently, the District
Magistrate, Ferozepur, Punjab, in terms of Regulation 22B(1) and as per
Schedule XXXIII, furnished a Verification Report dated 18.04.2022.
Therefore, the terms of Regulation 22B(1) stand complied.
20. Regulation 22E(1) provides as under:

Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague
Convention) are as under:
“Article 5
An adoption within the scope of the Convention shall take place only if

the competent authorities of the receiving State -
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 16096/2024 Page 7 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:20.04.2026
18:55:35

a) have determined that the prospective adoptive parents are eligible and

suited to adopt;
b) have ensured that the prospective adoptive parents have been
counselled as may be necessary; and
c) have determined that the child is or will be authorised to enter and
reside permanently in that State.

Article 17
Any decision in the State of origin that a child should be entrusted to
prospective adoptive parents may only be made if -
a) the Central Authority of that State has ensured that the prospective

adoptive parents agree;
b) the Central Authority of the receiving State has approved such
decision, where such approval is required by the law of that State or by
the Central Authority of the State of origin;
c) the Central Authorities of both States have agreed that the adoption
may proceed; and
d) it has been determined, in accordance with Article 5, that the
prospective adoptive parents are eligible and suited to adopt and that the
child is or will be authorised to enter and reside permanently in the
receiving State.”

22. The language of Regulation 22B(2) read with Regulation 22E(1) of
the 2021 Regulations clearly conveys the mandate that compliance with the
provisions of Articles 5 and/or 17 of the Hague Convention is the
responsibility of CARA, once the verification of documents (verification
report) as per Schedule XXXIII is received. Further, Regulation 22B(3)
requires CARA itself to procure the requisite certificate.
23. It is pertinent to note that even under the Adoption Regulations, 2022
(hereinafter “2022 Regulations”) the procedure applicable to adoptions
already concluded under HAMA, 1956 (prior to commencement of the 2021
Regulations) remains unchanged. The position in this regard is encapsulated
in Regulation 67 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022. The same reads as
under:
“67. Procedure in the case of registered adoption deed .—(1) In the
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 16096/2024 Page 8 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:20.04.2026
18:55:35

cases where the adoption deed has already been executed in pursuance
of adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78
of 1956), before the commencement of the Adoption (Amendment)
Regulations, 2021, the requisite documents supporting the facts of the
adoption deed shall be duly verified and recommended by the District
Magistrate in the format as provided in Schedule XXXV.
(2) On receipt of the verification of documents as per Schedule XXXV,
the Central Adoption Resource Authority shall comply with the
provisions of Articles 5 or 17 from the receiving country as provided in
the Hague Adoption Convention.
(3) Upon receiving such certificate, the Central Adoption Resource
Authority shall issue no objection certificate for Hague ratified countries
and in cases of countries outside the Hague Convention on Protection of
Children and Co-operation in respect of Inter-country Adoption, the
Central Adoption Resource Authority shall issue a support letter upon
receiving a letter accepting the said adoption from the Government
department.”

24. It is evident from the words of Regulation 67 that upon receipt of the
verified documents (supporting the adoption deed) as per the format
provided in Schedule XXXV, it is incumbent upon CARA to pursue the
matter further for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the provisions of
Articles 5 and/or 17 of the Hague Convention.
25. It would be wholly contrary to the purport of the express language of
Regulation 22B of the 2021 Regulations, as also Regulation 67 of the 2022
Regulations to leave prospective parents in the lurch, despite the fact that the
adoption under HAMA, 1956 stood completed prior to the commencement
of the 2021 Regulations.
26. 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. Equally untenable is the contention that the 2021
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 16096/2024 Page 9 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:20.04.2026
18:55:35

Regulations and / or the 2022 Regulations are inapplicable in respect of
adoptions concluded under HAMA, 1956.
27. 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, prior to the
commencement of 2021 Regulations. 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.

28. It is also pertinent to note that Article 7 of the Hague Convention
provides as under:
“Article 7
(1) Central Authorities shall co-operate with each other and promote co-
operation amongst the competent authorities in their States to protect
children and to achieve the other objects of the Convention.
(2) They shall take directly all appropriate measures to -
a) provide information as to the laws of their States concerning adoption
and other general information, such as statistics and standard forms;
b) keep one another informed about the operation of the Convention and, as
far as possible, eliminate any obstacles to its application.”

29. In terms thereof, it is incumbent upon the concerned authorities in
both the State of origin as well as receiving State to cooperate with each
other in the paramount interest of the welfare of the child.
30. If this Court were to accept the contention made by the respondents, it
would imply that even where an adoption validly takes place under HAMA,
1956, the adoptive parents would be precluded from seeking approval for
the relocation of the adopted child under 2021 Regulations. Such a
construction cannot be accepted. The express wording of the 2021
Regulations leaves no manner of doubt that in such situations, it is
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 16096/2024 Page 10 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:20.04.2026
18:55:35

incumbent on CARA to pursue the matter for conduct / conclusion of the
exercise contemplated under Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention.
31. In the present case, the confusion that has arisen is encapsulated in e-
mail dated 27.03.2023 addressed by the CARA to the Canadian authorities,
as also the response thereto dated 28.03.2023 addressed by the Canadian
authorities. The said e-mails are as under:


32. It is apparent that the concerned officials have proceeded on a
misconception and have completely missed the point that in terms of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 16096/2024 Page 11 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:20.04.2026
18:55:35

applicable Regulations, where an adoption under HAMA, 1956 stood
concluded prior to the commencement of 2021 Regulations, it was
incumbent upon CARA to follow up/facilitate compliance with the
requirements of Article5 and/or 17 of the Hague Convention.
33. Thus, CARA is under obligation to pursue the matter with the
Canadian authorities so as to ensure that all the regulatory requirements in
the receiving State are complied with. Instead of pointing out this position to
the Canadian authorities, no response appears to have been sent by CARA in
response to the aforesaid e-mail dated 28.03.2023.
34. The official/officer of CARA, who was present in Court, submitted
during the course of hearing that CARA’s only concern is that the child be
duly received in Canada. In line with the mandate of Article 7(1) of the
Hague Convention, CARA is directed to appropriately liaise with the
Canadian authorities and also convey the regulatory and statutory position as
set out hereinabove. It is noted that there is no objection on behalf of CARA
as regards validity of the adoption. This position should be made clear to the
Canadian authorities, with the request to expeditiously conclude the exercise
as contemplated under Articles 5 and/or 17 of the Hague Convention.
35. CARA is further directed to issue an NOC to the petitioners upon
conclusion of the aforesaid exercise.
36. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications
also stand disposed of.
37. The date already fixed i.e. 14.05.2026 stands cancelled.

SACHIN DATTA, J
APRIL 20, 2026/ ss
Signature Not Verified
W.P(C) 16096/2024 Page 12 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:20.04.2026
18:55:35