CARA is mandated to facilitate NOCs for inter-country relocation of children validly adopted under HAMA.

Petitioner No. 1 (a minor) was adopted by Petitioner Nos. 2 (an Indian citizen with Canadian PR) and 3 (a Canadian citizen and OCI holder) in 2019 according to Sikh customs, followed by a formal Adoption Deed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956, executed on February 8, 2021

Seeking to relocate the child to Canada, the parents initiated the process under the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021, obtaining a Verification Report from the District Magistrate, Ferozepur

However, the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) issued only a "Support Letter" instead of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and subsequently marked the application as "Rejected" on its portal, stating that HAMA adoptions could not be processed for inter-country relocation

The petitioners challenged this refusal, seeking a Mandamus for the issuance of an NOC

1. Whether CARA is legally obligated to issue an NOC for relocation of children adopted under HAMA, 1956, where the adoption occurred prior to the 2021 Regulations

2. Whether the responsibility to ensure compliance with Articles 5 and 17 of the 1993 Hague Convention lies with CARA once the District Magistrate has verified the adoption

The court primarily applied Regulation 22B and 22E of the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021, and the subsequent Regulation 67 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, which prescribe the procedure for children adopted under HAMA seeking relocation

These regulations mandate that upon receipt of a verification report from a District Magistrate, CARA "shall comply" with the provisions of Articles 5 and 17 of the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption

Article 7 of the Hague Convention further establishes the duty of Central Authorities to cooperate and eliminate obstacles to the Convention's application

The court found that the language of Chapter IV-A of the 2021 Regulations (and Regulation 67 of the 2022 Regulations) is unambiguous and specifically designed for situations where valid HAMA adoptions seek international relocation

It reasoned that once the District Magistrate issues a verification report under the prescribed schedules, the statutory burden shifts to CARA to facilitate permissions from the receiving state

The court rejected CARA's argument that HAMA adoptions fall outside its jurisdiction, noting that the regulations expressly cast an obligation on CARA to "pursue the matter" and ensure compliance with Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention

The court observed that CARA’s issuance of a "Support Letter" instead of an NOC based on a "misconception" of its own regulatory framework effectively left adoptive parents in the lurch and violated the principle of the best interest of the child

It directed CARA to appropriately liaise with the Canadian authorities, clarify the statutory validity of the adoption, and request the expeditious conclusion of formalities under Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention

Finally, the court commanded CARA to issue the NOC to the petitioners upon the conclusion of said exercise

The petition was disposed of with these directions