Who is Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma? What Delhi HC said about adoption by couples with two or more children

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma is a judge of the Delhi High Court. In this case, she presided over a single-judge Bench examining whether a couple with two biological children could challenge the withdrawal of an adoption referral. Her ruling clarified how Regulation 5(7) applies to prospective adoptive parents with two or more children.

The petition involved an Indian-origin couple living in Singapore. CARA referred an infant girl, identified as Baby K, to the couple in January 2026. They accepted the referral, but CARA withdrew it on March 30, citing the eligibility restriction for couples with two or more children.

Justice Sharma held that the couple was not eligible to adopt Baby K because the child was neither classified as special needs nor hard to place. She also ruled that accepting an incorrect referral created no enforceable right. The judgment directed CARA to improve eligibility checks, portal records, NOC processing, and grievance responses.

The Delhi High Court held that prospective adoptive parents with two or more children cannot be considered for adopting a child classified as normal. This restriction comes from Regulation 5(7) of the Adoption Regulations, 2022. It matters because an adoption referral cannot override the eligibility rules that govern child placements.

The case concerned an Indian-origin couple in Singapore who already had two biological sons. CARA referred Baby K to them in January 2026, and they accepted within hours. CARA later withdrew the referral after the application status became “Application Rejected – Withdrawn,” citing Regulation 5(7). The Court found Baby K was neither special needs nor hard to place.

The ruling means eligibility must be checked before a normal-category referral is made. The Court also said an accepted but unlawful referral creates no vested right or legitimate expectation. CARA was directed to strengthen checks and maintain accurate application statuses.

Regulation 5(7) sets an eligibility limit for prospective adoptive parents who already have two or more children. Under the rule, they cannot ordinarily be considered for a child in the normal category. The provision matters because adoption decisions must follow the regulation, even when an authority has mistakenly issued a referral.

The regulation permits such couples to be considered for children with special needs or children classified as hard to place. The article explains that a hard-to-place child is one for whom no eligible family comes forward after referral. It does not provide a detailed definition of special-needs children, but treats that category as an exception to the normal-child restriction.

The article also identifies exceptions for adoptions involving relatives or step-children. In Baby K’s case, the Court found no applicable exception. It held that the child was neither special needs nor hard to place on the material before it.

The eligibility restriction applies to prospective adoptive parents who have two or more existing children. In practical terms, having two children is enough to trigger the rule. The regulation does not wait until a couple has three or more children before limiting consideration for a normal-category child.

The couple in the case registered for inter-country adoption in December 2020, when they had one biological child. Their second child was born in March 2022. By the time CARA referred Baby K in January 2026, the couple therefore had two biological sons.

The Court focused on their status when the referral was made and reviewed. Because they had two children, they could be considered only for a special-needs or hard-to-place child, subject to the stated exceptions. Baby K did not fit either category on the evidence before the Court, so the referral was contrary to Regulation 5(7).

An adoption referral is not a guaranteed promise of placement. The Court held that a referral issued contrary to the Adoption Regulations, 2022 cannot override statutory eligibility requirements. Acceptance by the prospective parent therefore did not turn an invalid referral into an enforceable right.

CARA referred Baby K to the couple in January 2026, and the petitioner accepted within hours. CARA withdrew the referral on March 30 after the application status showed “Application Rejected – Withdrawn.” The Court found that the couple, already having two biological children, was not eligible for a normal-category child under Regulation 5(7).

The Court also rejected the argument that delay in issuing a No Objection Certificate amounted to approval. It said an NOC is not merely a procedural formality. Authorities and courts cannot treat administrative action or delay as permission to proceed contrary to the governing regulations.

Couples with two or more children are not excluded from every adoption opportunity. Under Regulation 5(7), they may be considered for children with special needs or children classified as hard to place. They may also benefit from the stated exceptions for relatives or step-children.

The article explains that a hard-to-place child is one for whom no eligible family comes forward after referral. It does not give a detailed definition of special-needs children, but identifies them as a separate category allowed under the regulation. In this case, the petitioner argued that Baby K might not be a normal child or might qualify as hard to place.

The Court rejected that argument on the material before it. It found that Baby K could neither be treated as a special-needs child nor as hard to place. The couple therefore could not rely on an exception to preserve the referral.

CARA stands for the Central Adoption Resource Authority. The article identifies it as the authority that issued and withdrew Baby K’s referral. It also shows CARA handling application statuses, Home Study Reports, medical examinations, and No Objection Certificates in the adoption process.

These stages create a documented basis for placement. A home study examines the prospective parents’ circumstances, while medical checks help establish the child’s condition and category. An NOC records that the required authority has no objection. In this case, the couple’s Home Study Report expired in December 2023 and was revalidated in 2025. The Court said an NOC was not merely procedural.

The article does not state one single reason for every requirement. It shows their practical importance through the dispute: eligibility errors led to an improper referral, and the Court ordered stronger checks, portal audits, timely NOCs, accurate statuses, and better grievance responses.