The Great Indian Adoption Circus: Time for the Legislature to wake up?

A case before the Supreme Court should serve as a wake-up call to lawmakers on the difficulties faced by foreigners wishing to adopt from India. A bench of Anil R Dave, UU Lalit, and L Nageshwar Rao JJ. today heard arguments in Karma Lama and Anr. v the Tibetan Children’s Village School..The parties.On one side stand an Italian-American couple who seek to adopt an abandoned child from the Tibetan Village School in Dharamsala. The child, who was from Nepal, had been brought to the school as an infant by a woman who was nursing another infant at the time..She took care of him for some time, but substance abuse and a violent relationship later, she declared that the child had become a ‘burden’ to her. In order to better her station in life, she fled to France, leaving the baby behind..When the Italian-American couple sough to take the child back to their home-county of the United States of America for a vacation, the lady objected despite the fact that she was not the ‘adoptive parent’, but simply a legal guardian for a short period of time..The Italian-American couple had already obtained a decree under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, certifying that they were the adoptive parents. In addition, the Child Adoption and Regulation Agency (CARA) had conducted a ‘home study’ and certified the fitness of the parents to adopt..However, counsel for the respondents alleged that the adoption Act does not apply to the present case, and therefore, the decree is invalid..To further complicate matters, it was the claim of the school that they did not have the authority to give the child up for adoption in the first place..Two mothers, several decrees, and a child caught in the crossfire.Counsel for the petitioners, senior counsel Gopal Subramaniam contended that the school was not a registered orphanage under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2002, and therefore had no locus standi to oppose any holiday that the child himself wanted to be a part of. Further, he stated that the school’s principal had misrepresented to the parents that they had authority to give the child for adoption, and were now saying that the child will have to go elsewhere..The respondents firstly alleged that the holiday was a ruse, and the taking of the child to Alaska was essentially an ‘abduction’, notwithstanding that the consent of the child was given..Another point raised by the School was based on the fact that since the prospective adoptive father was an American national, the child would be granted citizenship of the United States as soon as he landed on American soil. Consequently, if the child did not return, the School would lose credibility and would not have any remedy, except to extradite him, which again was a procedural nightmare..Bystanders were also witness to a moment of heated tension in Court as Senior Counsel Minakshi Arora brought in matters that were off the record, to which Subramanian took strong objection. Dave J. swooped in to diffuse the tension by recommending that matters off the record should be kept as such, and not brought into a regular proceeding..The Court’s Perspective.The Court was, at first, inclined to allow the parents to be granted permission to take the child to Alaska, since it appeared from Subramaniam’s arguments that the school was looking for a donation. However, after much deliberation, they took the view that the necessary procedure had been bypassed and ordered that the child be kept in the country till the procedure under CARA was cleared..The couple have been advised to get a No Objection Certificate from the said agency, and only then are they permitted to take the child to the United States.