Summary
The Court held that prospective adoptive parents who had both become US citizens could not retain consideration as resident Indians on their earlier registration. A common seniority list did not erase the separate statutory adoption routes. It set aside the High Court’s direction but ordered fresh notification of the child and conditional inter-country adoption by the couple if no Indian prospective parents adopted her within sixty days.
Issues
- Whether acquisition of foreign citizenship affected consideration on an earlier resident-Indian registration.
- Whether a common seniority list or exceptional circumstances permitted departure from the statutory procedure.
Provisions considered
- Sections 57, 58 and 59, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015General eligibility to adopt remained, but the applicable procedure changed when both applicants became foreign citizens. The inter-country route and prescribed initial period for placement with Indian prospective parents could not be bypassed. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16)
- Regulations 21(1) and 41, Adoption Regulations, 2017A mixed Indian-foreign couple could initially be treated at par with resident Indians. After both became foreign citizens, the common seniority list did not preserve the earlier category or override its distinct criteria. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
Held
- The original registration was maintainable while one spouse remained an Indian citizen. Once both acquired foreign citizenship, their eligibility for consideration as resident Indian prospective parents ceased; silence about updating registration did not avoid that consequence. (¶¶ 12, 14)
- Regulation 41 maintains a single list but applies different criteria to categories of prospective parents. Common seniority did not abolish the distinction between in-country and inter-country adoption. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The applicants’ bona fides and general competence to adopt were accepted. Those considerations could support priority within inter-country adoption, but could not dispense with the statutory placement process. (¶ 15)
- The child was to be notified legally free for adoption again within one week. If not adopted by Indian prospective parents within sixty days of that notification, she was to be given to the respondents in inter-country adoption with consequential steps completed. (¶ 16)
- The contempt applications were ill-advised in the circumstances and were rejected; the connected appeals concerning them were allowed. (¶ 17)
Result
Administrative decision upheld and High Court directions based on the first registration set aside. Fresh notification within one week and conditional adoption after sixty days directed. Contempt applications rejected; parties to bear their own costs.