Karnataka High Court directs Centre to recognise adoption of child from Uganda by Indian couple

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the Central government to recognize the adoption of a child from Uganda by an Indian couple, even though Uganda is not a signatory to the Hague Adoption Convention. [Ravi Kumar C and Anr. v Central Adoption Resource Authority and Anr.].Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that Uganda not being a signatory the Convention could not be a reason to alienate the rights of a child of Indian citizens."Even though the adoption has not happened under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, and in a country which is not a signatory to Hague Convention, but adoption has happened, the rights of a child of Indian citizens, who have adopted, cannot be left marooned." .The Court was hearing a plea by an Indian couple who used to reside in Uganda before moving to Kenya. When in Uganda, the couple adopted a child. The concerned court in Uganda declared that the petitioners were the adoptive parents of the child and granted them all consequential rights over the child.Thereafter, to formalise the adoption in India, the couple moved a representation before the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA).After receiving no response, they moved the High Court for a direction to CARA to regularize the adoption in India..Advocate Sameer Sharma for the petitioners contended that inter-country adoption is a recognized norm pursuant to the Hague Adoption Convention of 1995. It was argued that although Uganda was not a signatory to the Convention, CARA regulations or the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act could not impede the process of regularization of adoption in India, given that India was a signatory. .On the other hand, Deputy Solicitor General of India H Shanthi Bhushan, appearing for the CARA, told the Court that the government did not want to jeopardize the rights of the petitioners or render the child illegal without legalising the adoption.He stated that a support letter would be enough for necessary entry into and exit from India. Further, he submitted that if the procedure is appropriately followed, a no objection certificate for the adoption would also be issued by CARA..The Court noted that the competent court in Uganda had already legalized the adoption. Based on Bhushan's submission, the Court concluded that the Central government had accepted of the right of the child to be legally adopted in terms of laws of India.Thereafter, it observed that the Juvenile Justice Act covered inter-country adoptions only for a relative and, therefore, the situation in the case was not covered by the Act. The Court noted that Regulation 23 of the Adoption Regulations of 2022, which deals with the procedure for adoption of a child from a foreign country by an Indian citizen, mandates that on receipt of a Home Study Report of the prospective adoptive parents, CARA shall issue approval of adoption of children coming into India.However, since Uganda was not a signatory to the Convention, the rights of the child to be treated as a citizen of India on legal adoption were in limbo, the Court observed..The Court emphasized that the petitioners were not asking for legalisation of an illegal adoption."They are the ones asking recognition of a legalized adoption under the Regulations of the Nation. They have in their arm complete legal process in the High Court of Uganda qua their right over the child," the Court said.In this light, it was necessary to iron out creases in the Regulations and the Act to accept such an adoption, the Court stated.It observed that the support letter that the Central government was willing to grant would not be of help as it is for issuance of passport in case of inter-country adoption."Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the Union of India not to restrict its magnanimity to issuance of a support letter; it should stretch for issuance of an approval or a no objection under the Regulations, for the reason that, it is a signatory to the Hague Convention," the order stated.Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and directed the Union government to redress the grievance of the petitioners by grant of a no-objection certificate in accordance with law..[Read Order]