A bench headed by Justice BV Nagarathna and comprising Justice Joymala Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by the United States-based maternal aunt of a child. The petitioner approached the apex court after her adoption application was rejected by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), the statutory body under the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development responsible for inter-country adoptions.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner urged the court to take up the matter urgently, informing the bench that the approval granted by authorities in the United States for the proposed adoption would expire on July 20.
Questioning the stand taken by CARA, Justice Nagarathna expressed strong displeasure and asked why the authority was objecting when a close family member was willing to adopt the child. The court observed that such a negative approach was unacceptable.
When counsel appearing for CARA sought additional time and submitted that the Additional Solicitor General should be allowed to address the matter, Justice Nagarathna responded sharply, stating that the court was not concerned about who would argue the case and that it was not intimidated by any Additional Solicitor General.
The bench also referred to an earlier instance involving a similar adoption matter connected with the United Kingdom. Justice Nagarathna observed that this was not the first time the authority had created difficulties and recalled that, in the previous case, the court had to summon an officer and ensure compliance.
The Supreme Court directed CARA to file its reply within the prescribed time and listed the matter for further hearing on July 13. The bench further cautioned that authorities could not render the adoption application ineffective by delaying proceedings before the court.
Issuing a stern warning to CARA, the bench stated that if the reply was not filed within the stipulated period, the court would proceed to decide the matter without considering any response from the authority.
Granting interim relief to the petitioner, the Supreme Court directed CARA to undertake the necessary steps for processing the adoption application, without prejudice to the contentions raised in the pending writ petition.
The observations made by the apex court underscored its concern over procedural delays in child adoption matters and signalled that administrative inaction could not be allowed to obstruct applications involving the welfare and future of a child.
About The Author
Comment List