Every child is a gift of God, parents wanting to adopt cannot pick or choose a particular child: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that parents who want to adopt cannot pick or choose a particular child, and that the needs and desires of such parents would always be subservient to the interest of the child [Michelle Camilleri & Anr v. Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) & Anr]..Justice Yashwant Varma said in his judgment,"The act of adoption is not available to be exercised with respect to a child specific. This for each child is a gift of God and thus entitled to an equal right to be embraced by a family and be fostered and nurtured. Neither colour, caste, creed nor nationality should on a fundamental plane have any role to play at all.".Justice Varma further said that every child who enters this world must be recognised in law to have basic rights, and an opportunity to not just survive, but to strive towards finding its true place amongst us.“And while prospective adoptive parents (PAP) may have the right to exercise a choice based on gender or to adopt one based on his/her special needs, no legal system prevalent in civilised nations entitles one to specifically select or choose a particular child.”.The Court was dealing with a petition by a couple from Malta challenging a communication issued by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) informing the Specialized Adoption Agency - where the child was housed - about a complaint which had been received by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR).The complaint alleged violation of adoption regulations. Through its communication, CARA told the adoption agency to withdraw the couple’s adoption petition from the competent court till the complaint is investigated.The High Court was told the child was rescued on October 10, 2019 and was produced before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC). She was declared legally free for adoption on July 28, 2020 and was offered for reservation on two separate occasions.In the two rounds when she was made available for adoption under the special needs category, the petitioners alone applied and no resident Indian, Non-Resident Indian (NRI) or Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) exercised the choice to reserve the adoption.The child suffered from several ailments, including epilepsy.However, a dispute arose when the family of the person who had rescued the child made a complaint that they had been taking care of her needs and medical expenses throughout, and had made an application to adopt the child..After considering the arguments, the Court said that while the complainants’ acts are laudable and deserve praise and gratitude, the validity of an adoption and the proceedings undertaken by CARA cannot be adjudged based on the support or succour that may have been provided to an abandoned or orphaned child.“That would clearly amount to according recognition to a right inhering in that caregiver to claim a superior right when it comes to adoption and the creation of a priority which is otherwise neither envisaged nor sanctioned under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act or the Adoption Regulations, 2017 and the Adoption Regulations 2022.”.The judge noted that the complainant did not exercise the choice to reserve the child, and since the process of placement of the special needs child has already taken three years, it must be conferred a closure.“Her (child’s) confusing and disturbed initial years have undoubtedly been traumatic. It is time that she finds the quiet and comfort of a home and a family.”.The Bench also rejected the issued raised by the NCPCR that many adoptions are being finalized in favour of parents residing in Malta.Justice Varma noted that he is unable to appreciate the insinuation raised, especially when no breach of fundamental procedure could be pointed out or established."The Court in any case is of the firm opinion that the validity of an adoption can neither be doubted nor questioned merely on an asserted “possibility of irregularity",” the judgment stated..Therefore, the Court quashed CARA’s communication to the adoption agency and directed it to take further steps to complete the process of adoption in accordance with the No Objection Certificate which has been issued by it.“Bearing in mind the fact that Child “S” was abandoned in 2019, it is expected that all concerned authorities shall aid and assist in the expeditious conclusion of all legal formalities relating to her adoption by the petitioners,” the Court ordered..The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy along with Advocates Tara Narula, S Debabrata Reddy, Sonal K Chopra, Yash S Vijay and Utkarsh Pratap.CGSC Monika Arora, along with Advocates Shivam Raghuwanshi and Yash Tyagi appeared for CARA.Advocate Veer Vikrant Singh appeared for the other respondent. .[Read Judgment]