The Supreme Court has questioned the stand taken by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) in opposing the adoption and relocation of a minor girl to the United States by her maternal aunt and uncle, expressing concern over what it described as bureaucratic obstacles in family-based adoptions involving close relatives residing abroad.
The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made these observations on Monday, while hearing a writ petition filed by a 13-year-old girl and her adoptive parents, challenging an Office Memorandum issued by CARA on February 9, 2026, which effectively prevented the processing of an inter-country relative adoption after the child had already been adopted under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956.
During the hearing, the Court repeatedly questioned CARA’s opposition to adoptions by close family members and expressed dissatisfaction over administrative hurdles faced by relatives seeking to provide care and rehabilitation to children following the death of a parent. The Bench observed that it had encountered similar situations in earlier cases where relatives residing overseas faced difficulties in adopting children from within their own family.
The case concerns a minor girl whose mother passed away in July 2024. Following her mother’s death, the child was adopted by her maternal aunt and uncle, who are residents of the United States and Overseas Citizens of India, through a registered adoption deed executed under HAMA. The petitioners stated that the adoption had initially been processed as an inter-country relative adoption under Chapter VII of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, and had reached an advanced stage before the process was halted.
According to the petition, complications arose due to a conflict between Indian and American adoption frameworks. The adoptive parents had completed the requirements prescribed by a United States government-authorised agency for inter-country adoption. However, they were informed that a clearance under India’s adoption framework would be necessary before the child could relocate to the United States.
The petitioners submitted that in September 2025, the United States stopped issuing Hague Adoption Certificates for adoptions completed under HAMA on the ground that the statute did not provide the safeguards required under the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. As a result, the regulatory mechanism permitting overseas relocation following HAMA adoptions became ineffective in the United States.
Simultaneously, CARA issued its Office Memorandum clarifying that once an adoption had already been completed under HAMA, the same case could not subsequently be processed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Adoption Regulations, 2022. The clarification relied upon Sections 56(3) and 56(4) of the Juvenile Justice Act. While Section 56(3) excludes HAMA adoptions from the ambit of the Juvenile Justice Act, Section 56(4) mandates that all inter-country adoptions must be undertaken in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act and the regulations framed by CARA.
Acting upon this clarification, the District Child Protection Unit rejected the petitioners’ application on April 15, 2026. The petition challenges both the Office Memorandum and the rejection order.
The petitioners contended that they had been placed in a legal deadlock with no effective mechanism available for family reunification. They argued that CARA’s interpretation of the statutory framework prevented them from proceeding under the inter-country relative adoption provisions, while the United States authorities refused to recognise the HAMA adoption for purposes of issuing the necessary Hague certification.
According to the petition, the combined effect of these legal barriers deprived a lawfully adopted child of any avenue for relocation to her adoptive family abroad and violated the guarantees of equality and dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Advocate Noor Shergill, appearing for the petitioners, emphasised the urgency of the matter and informed the Court that the approval granted by the United States authorities would expire in July 2026. He submitted that even if the Court ultimately ruled in favour of the petitioners, restarting the entire administrative process would result in further delay and prejudice to the child. He therefore requested that CARA continue processing the application pending adjudication of the writ petition so that the necessary approvals could be issued without additional procedural hurdles if the petition succeeded.
CARA sought time to file its response and requested that the matter be taken up after the court vacation. The Court, however, declined to defer consideration of the matter for an extended period. The Bench observed that the permission granted by the United States authorities should not lapse merely because CARA had not filed its reply and indicated that the case could proceed even in the absence of a counter affidavit if the authority failed to respond within the stipulated period.
The Court also rejected the contention that a child adopted under HAMA could not be permitted to relocate abroad because the Juvenile Justice Act framework could not be combined with a HAMA adoption. The Bench observed that adoptions completed under HAMA continue to be recognised under Indian law and questioned the authority’s resistance to facilitating family-based adoptions involving close relatives.
Recalling an earlier matter involving twins sought to be adopted by their paternal aunt residing in the United Kingdom, Justice Nagarathna noted that similar obstacles had been raised by the authorities in that case as well. The Court expressed concern that procedural rigidity was being allowed to override the welfare of children and the objective of family rehabilitation.
Pending further consideration of the case, the Supreme Court directed CARA and the concerned authorities to take all necessary steps for processing the petitioners’ application without prejudice to their legal contentions in the writ proceedings. The matter has been listed for further hearing in July.
The post Supreme Court pulls up CARA over opposition to adoption of minor girl by US-based aunt appeared first on India Legal.