Holding

The Supreme Court held that to prevent abuse and ensure expeditious adoption, it may direct reasonable remuneration to scrutinising agencies, prohibit publication of guardianship notices, require a one‑month custody period before processing foreign applications, impose strict one‑month timelines for release orders, and allow recognised placement agencies to recover costs up to Rs. 6,000, among other procedural safeguards.

Summary

The Supreme Court entertained several criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under Article 32 seeking clarification of the procedural safeguards it had earlier laid down for the adoption of Indian children by foreign and Indian parents. It directed that reasonable remuneration, ranging from Rs. 450 to Rs. 500 (and up to Rs. 6000 for cost recovery) may be paid to the scrutinising agency, with a ceiling of Rs. 150 for Indian parent cases. The Court held that notices of guardianship applications, whether by foreign or Hindu parents under s.9(4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, must not be published in newspapers to protect the identity of biological parents. It imposed a mandatory one‑month custody period for a child in a recognised placement agency before processing a foreign guardianship application and barred agencies from acting merely as conduits for unrecognised agencies. Further, it set a one‑month deadline for Juvenile Courts (or Social Welfare Departments/Collectors where courts are absent) to dispose of release orders for abandoned or destitute children, mandated monthly reporting to High Courts, and allowed recognised agencies to recover costs up to Rs. 6,000. The Court also ordered annual publication of lists of recognised placement agencies and clarified that foreign residents in India need not obtain home‑study reports from foreign agencies.

Issues considered

When should the court fix remuneration for scrutinising agencies in foreign adoption cases and what limits apply?
Should notices of guardianship applications under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act be published?
Can recognised placement agencies act as mere conduits for unrecognised agencies in processing foreign adoption applications?
Is a minimum one‑month custody period for a child in a recognised placement agency required before processing a foreign guardianship application?
What time‑frame must Juvenile Courts observe for granting release orders for abandoned or destitute children?
Is it necessary to appoint the representative of a recognised placement agency as a joint guardian with the foreign applicant?
Can a deed of relinquishment replace the need for a release order from a Juvenile Court?
What cost recovery limits may be imposed on recognised placement agencies for foreign adoption cases?

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956s. 9(4)

Subjects

adoptionforeign adoptionscrutinising agencyrecognised placement agencyjuvenile courtrelease ordernotice publicationHindu Adoptions and Maintenance Actchild welfareprocedural safeguards

Judgment

LAXMI KANT PANDEY
v. A
UNION OF INDIA

DECEMBER 3. 1986

[P.N. BHAGWATI, C.J. AND RANGANATH MISRA, .J.] B

ADOPTIONS

Children-Adoption by Indian/ Foreign parents-Guidelines/directions
given to the Scrutinising Agencies udth regard to its servi~es and remuneration.

Foster Care Homes &. Recognised Placement Agencies-Duty to C
exchange with one another information regarding Indian Parents wishing to
adopt lndi~n children.

A~andoned/destitute children-Duty of Hospitals/Nursing Homes to
inform Social Welfare Department/Collector regarding discovery or find of D
such children.

Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956, s.9(4)-Adoption of
children~Notice of application-Publication of-Notice need not be
published.
E
Juvenile Courts-Abandoned/ destitute children-Declaration a/-
Release order-Juvenile Court to complete inquiry within one month & pass
the order-High Court ~o supervise proper vigilance over Juvenile Courts-
Release Order-When can be dispensed with.

Recognised placement agencies-Duty of Government to publish lists F
every year-Recognised placement Agencies entitled to recover its costs
incurred in processing the application from the foreigner.

The Supreme Court in thejudgm'ent of Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of
India dated 6th February, 1984 and the supplemental judgment dated 27th
September, 1985 had formulated the normative and procedural s~feguards to G
be followed in giving an Indian child in adoption to foreign parents. Since there
were certain difficulties in implementing the aforesaid norms and principles, the
petitioners moved the present criminal miscellaneous petitions for seeking
clarification/further directions in the matter.

Disposing of the petitions, H
//

384 SUPREME COURT F.EPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

A HELD: 1. When the court makes an order appointing a foreign parent as
x
guardian of a child with a view lo its eventual adoption in the foreign country,
the court will provide that such amount shall be paid to the scrutinising agency
for its services as the court thinks reasonabk having regard to the nature of the
case and the extent and volume of the services rendered by the sorutinising
agency. In case of an application for ap1~ointment of a foreign parent as
B •guardian of a child the Court would be ju;tified in directing payment of any' .I".
reasonable amount varying between Rs. 4:l0 and Rs. 500 but in appropriate
cases where the courts so think fit. such amount may even exceed Rs. 500-.
This amount shall be directed to be paid to the scrutinising agency by the
recognised placement agency and such placement agency shall have the right to
recover such amount from the foreign parent whose application · for
guardianship it has processed. This direction will also apply mutatis mutandis
c In cases where an Indian parent makes an :i.pplication for appointing himself or
herself as guardian of a child or a Hindu pllrent applies for permission to adopt
a child under s.9 sub-s.(4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
and the case is referred tO a scrutinising a~:ency by the Court, but in such cases
the amount to be fixed by the Court for meeting the expenses of the scrutinising
D agency shall not exceed Rs. 150. [387G ·- 388C]

2.1 All nursing homes and ho,pitals which come across abandoned or
destitute children or find such childre·.i abandoned in their precincts or
otherwise shall immediately giYC informa lion in regard to the discovery or find
of such children to the Social Welfare Department of the concerned
E Government where such nursing homes <Jr hospitals are sitllate in the ~apital of
the State and in other cases to the Collett or of the District and copies of such
intimation will also be sent to the Foster Care Home where there is such a home
run b)' the Government as also to the recognised placement agencies
functioning in the city or town \\1 here such nursing homes or hospitals are
situate. [388F - G]
F
2.2 Each Indian parent who is regi itered \\'"ith the Foster Care Home or a
recognised placement agency as a prospective parent wishing to take a child in
adoption and who has been informed by the recognised placement agency that
a child i' available for adoption will b<: entitled to information about all the
children available for adoption in the group specified by him, according to the
G consolidated list maintained by the rec·>gnised placement agency. [3898]

3. The Supreme Court had directed in paragraph 22 of the main "+-
judgment· that the notice of the application for guardianship in cases of
adoption by foreign parents should not be published in any newspaper because
otherwise the biological parents would ':ome to know as to who are the parents
H taking the child in adoption. This dir,,ctiOn must also cover the cases where
L.K. PANDEY v. UNION OF INDIA [BHAGWATI, CJ.] 385
•
Hindu Parents make an application under s.9 sub-s.(4) of the Hindu Adoptions A
and Maintenance Act, 1956. [389D - E]

4. No recognised pl.accment agency shall make and process an
application for appointment of a foreigner as guardian of a child w~h a view to
its eventual adoption, unless the child has been in the custody of the recognised
:.i placement agency for a period of at least one month before the making of the B
application and it shall not he permitted to act merely as a post office or conduit
pipe for the benefit of an unrecognised agency. [390D - E]

5. Whenever a child is produced before the Juvenile Court by a
-~· recognised placement agency for a release order declaring that the child is
abandoned or destitute so as to be legally free for adoption, the Juvenile (:ourt C
must in all such cases complete the inquiry within one month from the date of
the application and proper vigilance should be exercised by the High Court.
High Courts should call for monthly reports from the Juvenile Courts stating as
to how many ·applications for release orders, that is, for declaring children
abandoned or destitute, arc pending before each .Juvenile Court, when they
were filed and if they have not been disposed of within one month, what is the D
reason for the delay. Where- the Juvenile Court is not in existence, application
for release order is required to be made to the ~ocial \Velfare Department in the
capital of the State or to the Collector of the District. in other places. The Social
Welfare Department or the Collector, as the case may be, will dispose of such
application within one month of it~ making. [3918 - D, F]
.E
6. The Court entertaining an application for- appointment of a fOreigner
as guardian of a child should not require the representative of the recognised
placement agency processing the application to join the application as a co-
petitioner nor should the court ;nsist on aPpointing such represen~ative as joint
guardian of the child alongwith the foreigner.- (392C]
F
7. Where a child is relinquished by its bi.\logical parents or by an unwed
mother under a Deed of Relinquishment executed hy the biological parents or
the unwed mother it should not be nece5sary to go through the Juvenile Court
or the Social Welfare.Department or the Collector to obtain a release order
declaring the child free for adoption but ii would be enough to produce the
Deed of Relinquishment before the court which considered the application for G
appointment of a foreigner as guardian of the child. [393B]

8.1 Where an abandoned or destitute child is found by a recognised
'placement agency or is brought to it by anothet social or child \\-'elfare agency or
individual it should. be open to such recognised placement agency to transfer the
child to its branch in another Stat.e after the ~ompletion of the inquiry by the H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

juvenile court or Social Welfare Department or the Collector, as the case may
A be. Where such recognised placement agency has an associate social or child
welfare agency in another State, it should be open to the recognised placement
agency to transfer the child to such associate social or child welfare agency in
the other State, provided firstly, that the inquiry is complete by the juvenile
court or the Social Welfare Department or the Collector and a release order is
B passed, and secondly, the associate soda! or child welfare agency has been
notified by the recognised placement ag1ncy as its associate to the Government
of the State where the recognised placement agency is functioning as also to the
Government of the State where the associate social or child welfare agency is
operating. If, for any compelling reason, it becomes necessary for the
recognised placement agency to transfer a child either to its own branch or to an ~--
'
associate social or child welfare agency hefore completion of the inquiry by the
C juvenile court or the Social Welfare Department or the Collector, as the case
may he, the recognised placement agency shall be allowed to do so after
obtaining permission of the juvenile court or the Social Welfare Drpartment or
the Collector in that behalf. [394E - 395A]

D 8.2 The _Government of India is directed (i) to publish at least once in a
year a list of recognised placement agendes and all their associate social or child
welfare agencies operating in each State in two leading newspapei's; and (ii) to
send to the District Courts in each State through the High Court a list of the
recognised placement agencies functiorong within the State together with the
names and particulars of their associal<! social or child welfare agencies. Such
E list must be supplied to the District Jud1:es at least once in a year and whenever
any changes or modifications are niade in the list, such change or modifications
must be intimated to the District Judges through the High Court. [395 B - C]

9. The recognised placement a:~ency processing the application of a
foreigner for being appointed guardian of a child with a view to its eventual
F adoption, should be entitled 'to recov(:r from the foreigner, cost incurred in
preparing and filing the application and prosecuting it in court including legal
expenses, administrative expenses preparation of chlld study report,
preparation of medical and 1.Q. Reports, p_assport and visa expenses and
conveyance expenses and that such ellpenses may be fixed .by the court at a
figure not exceeding Rs. 6000. [395F) · ·
G
10. In case of a foreigner who has been living in India for one year or
more, the home-study report and other connected documents may be allowed ~
to the prepared by the recognised placement agency whlch is processing the
application of such foreigner for guardianship of a chlld with a view to its
eventual adoption and that in such a case the court should not insist on
H sponsoring of such foreigner by a soda! or chlld welfare agency based in the
. .
LK. _PANDEYv. UNION OF INDIA [BHAGWATI, CJ_.) 387

country to which such foreigner belongs nor should a home-study report in
~ respect of such for_eigner be required to be obtained from any such foreign . A
i social or clwd l'elfare agency. [396B]

11. The court entertaining an application on behalf of a foreigner for
- being appointed guardian of a child with a view to its eventual adoption need
· not insist on security or cash deposit or bank guarantee and it should be enough B
. if a bond is taken from the recognised placement agency which is processing the
application and such recognised placement agency may in its tum take a
corresponding bond from the sponsoring social or child welfare agency in the
- foreign country. [396D - Fl ·.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6693 of·
1986 etc. in Writ Petitio;. (Crl) No. 1171 of 1982. C

Under Article 32 of the Constitution or" India.

Petitioner-in-pCrson. ·
.
, ·-...
·,'.
.
. -
. . . .D
..

a: Datta,' Additional Solicitor General, Jagdeep Kishore, T.V.S.N.
Chari; Ms. K. Ja)~~!; D.N. Mishra, B.M. Bagaria, P.H. Parekh, M.K.D.
Namboodri, Kaifu!l Vasdev, H.K. Puri, R.K. Mehta, S. Kaushal and C.V.S.
Rao for the Respondent/ Applicant.· ·

~ . . :.
The Judgment of the'Court was delivered by
.· ,, ·, '
CrL M.P. No.'3141/86 .' !i
E

-....:
BHAGWATI,' CJ: This ~pplication has been filed by the Indian Council .
for Child Welfare .for obtaining a·direction that when it is required to act as a
scrutinising agency by the Court, a certain amount should be directed to be paid F
to it for the scrutinising servi<;es rendered by it, since the scrutinising services
would.require employment of staff and other necessary expenditure: Though
thiS application· is made 6n1y by the Indian Council for ·Child Welfare, we
apprehend that an other scrutinising agencies must also be facing the same
difficulty. We would theref.O~e direct that when the Court makes an order
appointing a foreign parent as guardian of a child with a view to its eventual G
adoption in the foreign couniry, the Court will provide that 'such amount shall
\ be paid to the scrutinising agency for its services as the Court thinks reasonable,
having regard to the ri.ature of the case and the extent and volume Of the services
! rendered by the scrutinising agency. We think that in the case of an ·application · ·•
for appointment of a foreign parent as guardian of a child the Court would be
justified in directing payment of any reasonable. amount rarying between H
388. . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

Rs. 450 and Rs. 500 but in appropriate cases where the Court so thinks fit, such
A amount may even exceed Rs. 500. This amount shall be directed to be pcid to
the scrutinising agency by the recognised placement ager.oy which has
processed the application of the foreign parent for being appointed.guardian of
the child with a view to its eventual adoption and the such pticement agency
shall have the right to· recover ·such amount from. the fo~eign parent whose
B application for guardianship it has processed. _This direction will also apply
lnutatis mutandis in cases where an, Indian parent makes an appliCation for
appointing himself or herself as guardian of a child or a Hindu parent applies
for permission to adopt a child under section 9 sub-section (4) of the Hindu
Adoptionsand Maintenance .Act, 1956 and the case is referred to a scrutinising
· . agency by the Court. but in such cases the amount to be fixed by the Court for
/ C . meeting the expenses of the scrutinising agency shall not exceed Rs. 150. Both
in the case of an application on behalf of a foreign parents as also in the case of
·an application on behalf of an Indian or Hindu parent, a copy of the order
made.by the Court apppinting the scrutinising agency shall be supplied to the
scrutinising agency immediately after the order is made; together with the
papers arid documents submitted to the Court in support of the application for
D appointi'nent of guardian or for permission \o adopt. · .

CrLM.P. No. 3142/86

This application has been made by the petitioner since according to the
petitioner there have been instances of illegal sales of babies. We may point out '
E that by its very nature it is l)Ot possible to devise a fool-proof formula which will
in all cases prevent illegal sales of babies but a procedure can and must be
formulated which will definitely reduce the possibility of such illegal sales. With
this end in view, we would direct that all nursing homes and hospitals which
come across abandoned or destitute children or find such children abandoned
in their pre points or otherwise shall immediately give information in regard to
F the discovery or find of such children to the Social Welfare Department of the
concerned Government where such nursing homes or hos'pitals are situate in
the capital of the State and in other cases to the collector of ttie District and
0

. copies of sucli intimation will also be sent to the Foster Care Home whereihere
is such a home run by the Government :is also to the recognised placement
agencies functioning in the City or town where such nursing homes or hospitals
G are situate. The· Social ·Welfare Department has also the Collector of the
District will take care to ensure that this direction given by us is followed by the
nuiSi~g homes 'and hospitals-·· wi~hin their jurisdiction and-. if necessary
intimation in regard tci the discovery or find of abandoned or destitute children, l'
if not sent by any particular nursing homes or hospitals to the Foster Care
Home and the recognised placement agencies shall be forwarded to them by the
H Social Welfare Department and the Collector of the District.
L.K. PANDEY v. UNION OF INDIA [BHAGWATI, CJ.] 389

The Foster Care Home run by the Government as also the recognised A
placement agencies in the capital of the State or in the District will also
exchange with one another information regarding Indian parents who wish to
take children in adoption so that the Foster Care Home as also each recognised
placement agency will have a consolidated list of such Indian parents. Each
Indian parent who is registered with the Foster Care Home or a recognised-.
placement agency as a prospective parent wishing to take a chilrl in adoption B
and who has been informed by the recognised placement agency that a·child is
available for adoption will be entitled to information about all the children
available for adoption in the group specified· by him, according to the
-+ consolidated list maintained by the recognised placement agency.

Cr/. M.P. No. 4455/86
c
This Court directed in paragraph 22 of the main judgment dated 6th
February 1984 that the notice of the application for guardianship should not be
published in any newspaper and this wa.s reiterated in the Supplementary
Judgment dated 27th September, 1985, because otherwise the biological
parents would come to know as to who are the parents taking the child in D
adoption. The question raised in the present application is as to whether this
direction should be confined only to cases of adoption by foreign parents or it
should be extended to cover cases where Hindu parents seek to take a child in
adoption and make an applicaiton to the Court for that purpose. We are of the
view that having regard to the object and purpose fo.r which this direction has
been given, it cannot be confined to the case of adoption by foreign parents. It E
must also cover the cases where Hindu Parents make an application under
section 9 sub-section (4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
We would, therefore, clarify the direction given by us and direct that notice of
an application under Section 9 sub-section (4) of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 will also not be published in any newspaper. The
present applicati.on will stand disposed of accordingly. F

Cr/. M.P. 4064 / 86

This application has been filed by the Karnataka State Council for Child
Welfare c6mplaining that the object and purpose for which various directions
were given by this Court in its mainJudgmentdated 6th February, l984and the G
supplemental Judgment dated 27th September, 1985 is being defeated by the
practicewhich has been adopted in some places in the State ofKarnataka where
unrecognised agencies are using recognised placen1ent .agencies as post offices ·
for processing cases in respect of children which are in the custody of the
unrecognised agencies and with which the recognised placement agencies have
nothing to do. The result of this practice is that the recognised placement H
390 SUPREME .COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

agencies merely act aS conduit pipes for making arid processing applications for
A appointment of a foreigner as guardian of a child, even though the child is not
with them at all and they are not even in contact with the foreign sponsoring
agency or the foreigner wishing to take the child in adoption. This practice, if it
. is prevaleni in any part of the State of Karnataka or for that matter, in the
country, mustmeet with our disapprobation. It is the recognised placement
B agency which has tci prepare the child study report including the medical report
for submission to the Court alongwith the application for appointment of the
foreigner as guardian of the child and this obviously cannot be done unless the
child is with .the recogn~ed placement agency, because the recognised
placement agency has to observe the child and gather full information about it
m order tci be able to make the report for submission to the Court. The
. · C-. ~ recognised placement agency must therefore necessarily have the custody of the
• child for a period of at least one month before it can prepare a really genuine
and satisfactory child study report alongwith the medical report. If we permit
the recognised placement agency to act merely as post office or conduit pipe for
making and processing an application for guartlianship on behalf of an
unricogn~ed agency, it would lead to manifold evils which it has been our
D · endeavour to eliminate. We would therefore direct that no recognised
placement agency shall make and process an application for appointment of a
foreigner as giiardian of a child with a view to its eventual adoption, unless the
child has been in the custody of the recognised placement agency for a period of
at least one month before the. making of the application and it shall not be
permitted to act merely as a post office or conduit pipe for the benefitof an
E unrecognised agency.
\

Crl.. M.P. No. 4065/86

This application of the Delhi Council for Child Welfar~ s'eeks
·clarification in respect of certain observations made by this Court in paragraph
F 6 of the supplemental judgment dated 27th September 1985. This Court, while
providing that children who are found abandoned should not be assumed to be .
free for adoption but they must be produced before the Juvenile Court so that
further inquiries can be made and their parents or guardians can be traced,
directed the Juvenile Courts "that when children are selected for adoption,
release order should be passed by. them expeditiously and without delay and
G proper vigilance in this behalf must be exercised by the High Court". The Delhi
Council for Child Welfare has pointed out in this application made by it for
clarification that the Juvenile Courts are construing this observation literally
-- and mechanically 'and are taking the view that release orders in respect of the
children produced before them are to be passed "expeditiously and without
delay" only in cases 'where it can be said that the children "are selected for
H adoption" and since no child can possibly be offered in adoption unless it is
L.K. PANDEY v. UNION OF INDIA [BHAGWATI, CJ.] 391

declared legally free for adoption by the Juvenile Court, this direction giyen by
the court for expeditious passing of release Orders in cases where '"children are A
selected for adoption" has become meaningless and futile and the Court should
suitably modify it. This contention raised on behalf of the Delhi Council for
Child Welfare is well-founded, because obviously no child can be offered for
adoption unless the release order is passed in respect of it and it would therefore
be futile to provide that release order shall be passed expeditiously and without B
delay in case of children selected for adoption. We would therefore modify this
direction given by us in paragraph 6 of the supplemental Judgment dated 27th
September 1985 by providing that whenever a child is produCed before the
Juvenile Court by a recognised placement agency for a release order declaring
that the child is abandoned or destitute so as to be legally free for adoption, the
Juvenile Court must in all such cases complete the inquiry within one month
from the date of the application and proper vigilance should be exercised by the C
High Cou\,I for the purpose of ensuring that this new direction1 given by us is
complied with by the Juvenile Courts. We would ask the High Courts to all for
monthly reports from the Juvenile Courts stating as to how many applications
for release orders, that is, for declaring children abandoned or destitute, are .
pending before each Juvenile Court, when they were filed and if they have not D
been disposed of within one month, what is the reason for the delay. We are
ve1y anxious that in respect of abandoned or destitute children, there should be
no undue delay in offering them for adoption to Indian parents and, failing
Indian parents, to f~reign pa~ents, because it is absolutely essential that such
children should be able to secure love and affection of adoptive parents at the
earliest. Indeed, nothing can take the place of love and affection of parents and. E
every effort must therefore be made to see that no procedural delays hold up fhe
process of such children being taken in adoption. This new direction given by us
· will·also be applicable in cases where, the Juvenile Court not being in existence,
application for release order is required to be made to the Social Welfare
Department in the capital of the State or to the Collector of the District in other
places. The Social Welfare Department or the Collector, as the case may be, will F
dispose of such application within one month of its making.

Cr/. M.P. No. 6693/85'

There were several points raised in this application filed on behalf of
Church of North India, Holy Cross Social Service Centre, Missionaries of G
Charity and Delhi Council for Child Welfare. The first point related to a
practice which is being followed in Delhi in regard to making of an application
for appointment of a foreigner as guardian of a child with a view to it&eventual
adoption. ·rhe practice which is followed in Delhi is that the application for
appointment of a foreigner as guardian is required to be signed by the
representative of the recognised placement agency not only as Attorney of the H
392. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

A foreigner but also in his personal capacity, so that the application becomes an
application for appointment of the foreigner as well as the representative of the
recognised placement agency as joint guardians of the child. The Court
granting the application also appoints the foreigner as well as the representative
of the recognised placement agency as joint guardians and both continue as
joint guardians -until the child is adopted by the foreigner in his own country.
B This procedure entails a continued ''bligation on the part of tlte recognised
placement agency which is totally unnecessary and in fact, such procedure is not
followed in any other part of the country. It .)VDUld in our opinion be sufficient
to ensure the eventual adoption of the child and its proper care and welfare in
the meantime, if a bond is taken from the recognised placement agency to
secure performance of the obligation; and conditions laid down by the Court.
C We would therefore direct that the court entertaining an application for
appointment of a foreigner as gua:·dian of a child should not require the
representative of the recognised placement agency processing the application to
join the application as a co-petitioner nor should the court insist on appointing
such representative as joint guardian of the child alongwith the foreigner.
Where a representative of the recognised placement agency has already been
D appointed joint ;,'llardian prior to the making of this Order, he or she will stand
discharged on the child being adopted by the foreign parents.

The second point raised on behalf of the applicants was in regard to the
delay which is at present occurring in the procedure forgiving a child in
adoption to a foreigner in view of the time schedule fixed by the court in the
E main judgment dated 6th February, 1984 and the supplemental judgment dated
27th September 1985. The applicants contended that the entire process laid
down by the court is a long-drawn oot process running into a period of about 8
to 9 months and that would defeat ':he object of expedition in giving a child in
adoption. The applicants pointed out that under our judgments, where there is
a child surrendered by the biolog'.cal ·parents, a minimum period of three
F months is allowed to the biological parents to reconsider their decision and in ).
case of an abandoned or destitute child, a period of three months is provided for
'
-t
the Juvenile Court, Social Welfare Department or the Collector to clear the
child and declare it free for adoption and after the child is declared free for
adoption, a maximum period of l.wo months is provided to find an Indian
family for the child-which period is now curtailed to three to four weeks-and
G thereafter it takes another four weeks in mail for sending the child study and
medical reports to the sponsoring igency abroad for being handed over to the
foreigner for his approval and awaiting the receipt of approval and then a
further period of two months is a' lowed for' the court to process the case and +
thereafter on an average it takes another month or more to get the passport and
visa formalities completed. It thus takes about 8 to 9 months after the
H abandonment of the child before the child is able to join its adoptive parents.
L.K. PANDEY v. UNION OF INDIA [BHAGWATI, CJ.] 393

This is, according to the applicants, too long a period and the directions given
by us should be modified with a view to curtailing this poriod. We agreethat the A
1Joint raised on behalf of the applicants deserves serious consideration. We
would therefore direct that in cases where a child is relinquished by its biological
parents or by an unwed mother under a Deed of Relinquishment executed by
the biological parents or the unwed mother it should not be necessary to go
through the Juvenile Court or the Social Welfare Department or the Collector B
·;.,,
to obtain a release order declaring the child free for adoption but it would be
'
enough to produce the. Deed of Relinquishment before the court which
consider the application for appointment of a foreigner as guardian of the child.
It is only where a child is found abandoned or is picked up as a destitute that the

-->- procedure of going through th.e Juvenile Court or the Social Welfare
D~partment or the Collector would have to be adopted. As soon as abandoned
or destitute child is found by a social or child welfare agency, a report should be c
immediately lodged with the local police station along with a photograph of the
child. The Inspector General of Police or the <;ommissioner of Police, as the
case may be, should instruct every police station within his jurisdiction to
immediately undertake an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining and tracing
the parents of the child in respect of which the report is made and such inquiry D
must be completed within one month of the report being lodged with the police
station. Meanwhile, the social or child welfare agency which has found the
abandoned or destitute child may make an application to the Juvenile Court or
to the Social Welfare Department or the Collector, as the case may be, for a
release order declaring that the child is legally free for adoption and since the
report the inquiry to be made by the police has under this direction to be E
completed within one month. it should be possible for the Juvenile Court or the
Social Welfare Department or the Collector to make a release crder declaring
the child legally freefor adoption within a period of five weeks from the date of
making the application. If, as a result of the inquiry by the police the biological
parents are traced, the Juvenile Court or the Social Welfare Department or the
Collector, as the case may be, will issue a notice to the biological parents and F
give them an opportunity to reconsider their decision after explaining the
implications of the child being declared legally free for adoption. But, this
opportunity shall be availed of by the biological parents within a period of one
week and no more. This procedure will.considerably reduce the time taken up in
giving ari opportunity. to the biological parents to reconsider their decision as
also in getting the child cleared for adoption by the Jm<enile Court or the Social G
Welfare Department or the Collector. Whilst the application for a release order
is pending before the Juvenile Court or the Social Welfare Department or the
Collector, the recognised placement agency which has found the child or to
which the child is trans1erred by the social or child welfare agency finding the
ch!ld, may·proceed to'explore the possibility of offering the child in adoption
and the child may be offered simultaneously to Indian parents as well as foreign H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

'A parents, subject to the clearance of the child for adoption by the Juvenile Court
or the Social Welfare Department or the Collector: The recognised placement
agency need not wait until the release orderis made by the Juvenile Court or the
Social Welfare Department or the Collector,. before offering the c1tlld in
adoption, because otherwise even with the reduced time limit which wehave
now provided, it would take at least six weeks before the child can be offered in
B adoption. This time-lag of six weeks can be eliminated if the child is allowed to
be offered in adoption even while the application for release order is pending
and this ..:ould also eliminate the delay of about two months which would occur
if the child is not allowed t~ be offered in adoption to the foreign parents until
after the effort to find an Indian parent for the child has failed. If this procedure •
is followed, it should be possible to find an Indian parent or, failing that, a
C · foreign parent to take the child in adoption within a period of about 6 to 8
weeks from the time when the abandoned or destitute child is formed by the
concerned social ·or child welfare agency. _We are informed that this procedure is
already being followed in Bombay and, in our view, it should be adopted in all
jurisdictions.· ·

D ,W/then tum to the third point raised on behalf of the applicants and that ·
relates to transfer of children from one State to another for the purpose of being ·
·given in adoption. We have already dealt with this subject in paragraph 7 of the
supplemental judgment c;lated 27th September 1985 and we do not propose to
depart from what we have said in that paragraph of the judgment. But we
should like to make it clear that where an abandoned or destitute child is found
E by a recognised placement agency or is brought to it by another social or child
welfare agency or individual, it should be open to such recognised placement
. agency to transfer the child to its branch in another State afterthe completion of
. the inquiry by the Juvenile Court or Social Welfare Department or the
· Collector, as the case may be. Where such recognised placement agency has an
associate social or child welfare !lgency in another State, it should be open to the
· F c recognised placement agency to transfer the child to such associate social or
child welfare agency in the other State, provided firstly, that the inquiry is
complete by the Juvenile Court or the Social Welfare Department or the ·
Collector and. a release order is passed, and secondly, the associate social or
child welfare agency has been notified by the recognised placement agency as its
associate to the. Government of the State' where the recognised placement
G agency is functioning as also to the Government of the State where the associate
soc'.al or child welfare agency is operating. If, for any compelling rf'ason, it
becomes necessary for the recognised placement agency to transfer a child
either to its own branch or to an associate social or child welfare agency before
completion of the inquiry by the ·Juvenile Court or the Social Welfare
Department or the Collector, as the case may be, the recognised placement
H agency shall be allowed to do so after obtaining permission of the Juvenile
L.K. PANDEY v. UNION OF INDIA [BHAGWATI, CJ.] 395

Court or the Social Welfare Department or the Collector in that behalf.
A
. We would also direct the Government oflndia to publish at least once in
a year a list of recognised placement agencies and their associate social or child
welfare agencies operating in each State in two leading newspapers having wide
circulation in that State, one in the English language and the other in the
regional language of ti,at State, so that the people may know which are the B
recognised placement agencies and their associates which are functioning in
that State. We would also direct the Government oflndia to send to the District.
a
Courts in each State through the High Court list of the recognised placement
agencies functioning within the State together with the names and particulars of
their associate social or child welfare agencies. Such list must be supplied to the ·
.District Judges at ·1east once in a year and whenever any charges or
modifications are made in the list, such changes/or modifications must be
c
· intimated to the District Judges through the High Court.

One other point raised on behalf of the applicants was that the outer limit
of Rs. 4,000 fixed by the Court in the supplemental judgment dated
27th September 1985 for reimbursement of expenses including legal expenses, D
' administrative expenses, preparation of child .study report, preparation of
medical and I.Q. Reports, passport and visa expenses and conveyance
expenses, was inadequate, particularly having regard to the high fees charged
by lawyers and increase in the visa charges for United States ·and some other
countries and that this outer limit should, therefore, be raised from Rs. 4,000 to
Rs. 6,000. There is force in this submission made on behalf of the applicants, E
because there is no doubt that the fees oflawyer have gone up quite high and the
visa expenses have also more than doubled in recent times. We, therefore, agree
that the recognised placement agency processing the application of a foreigner
for being appointed guardian of a child with a view to its eventual adoption,
should be entitled to recover from the foreigner, cost incurred in preparing and
filing the application and prosecuting it in court including legal expenses, F
administrative expenses, preparation of child study• report, preparation of
medical and I.Q. reports, passport and visa expenses and conveyance expenses
and that such expenses may be fixed by the court at a figure not exceeding
Rs. 6000.

The applicants also drew ou·r attention to the case of foreigners living in G
India. for one or more years and stressed the difficulty involved in requiring their
cases to be sponsored by a foreign social or child welfare agency and the home-
study report in their cases to be prepared by such sponsoring foreign agency.
This difficulty is a genuine difficulty. It would be quite impracticable to ask a
foreigner living in India and wishing to take an Indian child in adoption to
obtain a home-study report from an agency base in his home cpuntry. It would H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.CR.

.A be impossible for any foreign social or child welfare agency to sponsor the case
of such foreigner who is living in Ind a and it would equally be impossible for
any such social or child welfare agency to prepare a home-study report in
respect of such foreigner. We would, therefore, direct that in case of a foreigner
who has been living in India for one year or more, the home-study report and
other connected documents may be allowed to be prepared by the recognised
B placement agency which is processir:.g the application of such foreigner for
guardianship of a child with a view to its eventual adoption and that in such a
case the court should not insist on sponsoring of such foreigner by a social or
child welfare agency based in the country to which such foreigner belongs nor
should a home-study report in respect of such foreigner be required to be
obtained from any such foreign social or child welfare agency. The home-study
-f -
C report and other connected document:; prepared by the recognised placement
agency should be regarded as sufficient.

The last point raised on behalf of the applicants arises out of paragraph
12 of the supplemental judgment dated 27th September 1985. We pointed out
D in that paragraph of the supplemental judgment that ordinarily the court
e~tertaining an application on behalf of a foreigner for being appointed
guardian of a child with a view tu its eventual adoption should not insist on
making of deposit by the foreigner as and by way of security for due
performance of the obligations undertaken by him, but in an appropriate case;
the court exceptionally pass an order requiring him to make such deposit. We
E observed that the execution of a bond would ordinarily be sufficient: and we
made two alternative suggestions which may be implemented in regard to the
execution of such bond. We have considered this question once again in view of
the plea raised on behalf of the applicants and we are of the view that the court
need not insist on security or cash deposit or bank guarantee and it should be
enough if a bond is taken from the recognised placement agency which is
F processing the application and. such recognised placement agency may in its
tum take a corresponding bond from t'.le sponsoring social or child welfare
agency in the foreign country. Ordinarily, the sponsoring social or child welfare
agency in the foreign country would hon our the bond in case the condition of·
the bond is broken, because, obviously if it fails to do so, no recognised
placement agency in India would in futur' deal with it and moreover the name
G of such foreign social or child welfare agency would be liable to be deleted from
the list of foreign social or child welfare agencies which are recognised as
sponsoring agencies for the purpose of adoption.

These were the only points rai:;ed for our consideration in the
applications made on behalf of various social and child welfare agencies. We
H have dealt with these points in some detail and we hope and trust that the
L.K. PANDEY v. UNION'OF INDIA [BHAGWATI, CJ.] 397

clarifications given by us will go a long way towards reducing the delay in the A
procedure to be followed in giving a child in adoption to a foreigner and will
also at the same time protect and safeguard the interest of the child by
preventing any possibility of abuse.

M.L.A.
B

/
l.._,
J.

•
+