CARA referral doesn’t give enforceable right to adopt child if legally ineligible: Delhi HC

The court ruled that accepting a child referral does not by itself create a legal right to adopt. The applicant must still satisfy the statutory eligibility rules, and CARA may reject the application before issuing the no-objection certificate, or NOC. This matters because an early referral is not the final adoption decision.

CARA referred Baby K to the Singapore-based man and his wife, and he accepted the referral. CARA then processed documents for the NOC, including a power of attorney, family photographs, birth certificates, and a consent letter from their elder son. The court held that these steps did not create a vested or enforceable right.

The petition was dismissed after CARA found the man ineligible under Regulation 5(7). The court also ordered stronger eligibility checks at registration, HSR revalidation, and referral stages. It required accurate portal records and brief reasons for decisions, while prohibiting “withdrawn” markings without specific withdrawal.

CARA, the Central Adoption Resource Authority, manages key parts of India’s adoption process. For inter-country adoption, it registers prospective adoptive parents, checks their information, refers children, and processes applications for an NOC. The NOC is a no-objection certificate. It indicates that CARA has completed that stage of its review and does not object to the proposed inter-country adoption.

In this case, the Singapore-resident man and his wife registered under the Non-Resident Indian category on CARA’s CARINGS portal. CARA referred a girl to them. They accepted the referral and submitted documents for the NOC, including a power of attorney, family photographs, birth certificates, and their elder son’s consent letter.

The High Court clarified that referral and NOC processing do not override eligibility rules. CARA may reject an application before issuing the NOC if the applicants are legally ineligible. The court also required checks at registration, HSR revalidation, and referral, with accurate portal status and reasons.

The couple had at least two existing children. The article specifically mentions their biological children and an elder son, whose consent letter was submitted during the NOC process. Their family size mattered because the adoption regulations impose a special condition on couples with two or more children.

Under Regulation 5(7) of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, couples with two or more children may be considered only for special-needs children and hard-to-place children. CARA found the Singapore-based man ineligible under that rule. The referral of a girl child did not remove the regulatory requirement.

The High Court therefore upheld rejection of the inter-country adoption application. The ruling shows that CARA must verify eligibility before allowing the process to advance too far. The court directed CARA to check and record eligibility at registration, HSR revalidation, and before referral, and to audit profiles affected by portal migration.

Regulation 5(7) of the Adoption Regulations, 2022 was the decisive rule. It says couples with two or more children shall only be considered for special-needs children and hard-to-place children. The rule therefore narrowed the kinds of children for whom the couple could be considered.

The Singapore-resident man and his wife had registered as prospective adoptive parents under the Non-Resident Indian category. CARA referred a girl child to them in January. They accepted the referral and submitted documents for an NOC, including their biological children’s birth certificates and a consent letter from their elder son. CARA later rejected the application.

The High Court accepted CARA’s position that the man was legally ineligible under Regulation 5(7). It held that the earlier referral and document processing could not create a right contrary to the regulations. The court also ordered better eligibility checks before referrals, so similar discrepancies can be identified earlier.

When CARA discovered that the applicant was legally ineligible, it rejected the inter-country adoption application before issuing the NOC. The High Court held that this outcome was lawful, even though CARA had already referred a child and processed documents. Eligibility remained a statutory requirement throughout the process.

The couple had accepted CARA’s referral of a baby girl and had submitted and re-submitted documents for the NOC. The man argued that CARA had already scrutinised the documents and could not reopen eligibility. CARA relied on Regulation 5(7), which restricted couples with two or more children to special-needs and hard-to-place children.

The court dismissed the petition. It said actions that conflict with statutory regulations cannot create a vested or enforceable right when corrected before the NOC and final order. It also directed CARA to verify eligibility earlier, accurately update application status, provide brief reasons, and avoid marking an application “withdrawn” unless the applicants actually withdrew it.

“Legitimate expectation” describes an expectation that public authorities will follow a lawful representation, established practice, or procedure. It can matter when a person relies on an authority’s conduct. But it cannot require an authority to continue acting against a statute or regulation. Lawful eligibility remains more important than an applicant’s expectation.

The applicant relied on CARA’s referral of Baby K, his acceptance of it, and CARA’s later processing of his NOC application. He argued that these steps showed eligibility had already been settled. The court disagreed because the applicant was ineligible under Regulation 5(7), and CARA corrected the error before issuing the NOC and passing the final order.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said an expectation founded on actions taken contrary to statutory regulations cannot be a legitimate expectation in law. The ruling protects the adoption rules from being overridden by administrative mistakes. It also supports earlier eligibility checks and clearer records so applicants receive more accurate information.

India’s inter-country adoption system is supposed to protect children by ensuring that prospective adoptive parents meet legal requirements before a referral advances. CARA must verify and record eligibility at registration, when the Home Study Report is revalidated, and before referring a child. These checks reduce the risk of an unsuitable or legally barred application progressing.

The court’s directions require CARA to work with Specialised Adoption Agencies, State Adoption Resource Agencies, authorised foreign adoption agencies, and Indian diplomatic missions wherever applicable. CARA must also audit profiles revalidated or updated during migration to the designated portal. The audit should find mismatches between applicants’ submitted information and portal details.

The court further required CARA to follow prescribed timelines and ensure that the portal shows the action taken with brief reasons. An application cannot be labelled “withdrawn” unless the applicants specifically withdrew it. Together, these directions aim to make decisions earlier, clearer, more traceable, and better coordinated across countries.