LAXMI KANT PANDEYversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

                                                                   71


                           LAXlll KANT PANDEY                           A
                                    V•
                          UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

                           SEPTEMBER 27, 1985

      [P.N. BHAQIATI, C.J., R.S. PATHAK AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.]    B

          Adoptions-

          lnter-cmmtry adoption of children - Adoption · of Indian
    Children by foreign parents - Principles and norms laid down by
    Supreme Court - Clarification and alteration of.                    c
          The applicants - social or child welfare agencies engaged
    in placement of children iii inter-country adoption after having
    felt that there were certain difficulties in implementing the
•   principles and norms adopted and the procedure laid down by
    Supreme Court. in its judgment in Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of     D
    India, w.P. (Crl.) No. 1171/82, made the present applications
    seeking clarification on the various points., nemely (i) whether
    a scrutinizing agency must be distinct from a placement agency;
    (ii) what steps must be taken where there is disruption in the
    family of the petitioner either before or after the adoption;
    (iii) what is the role which a scrutinising agency is expected to   E
    play in the procedure relating to inter-country adoptions; (iv)
    whether it is desireable to permit a child to be taken from one
    State to another for the purpose of being given in adoption and,,
    if so, what guidelines should be followed; (v) Clarification in
    regard to the reports to be made by the social or child welfare
    agency sponsoring the application after the foreigner is
    appointed gusrdian of the child and he takes the child to his own   F
    country; (vi) what is the role which the representatives of
    foreign agencies should be allowed to play in inter-cO\llltry
    adoption; (vii) whether the requirement that the certificates,
    declarations and documents required to be sul:mlitted along with
    the application of 'the foreigner for taking a child in adoption
    should be duly notarised by a Notary Public and the signsture of    G
    the Notary Public should be duly attested either by an officer of
    the Ministry of External Affairs or Justice or social welfare of
    the country of the foreigner or by an officer of the Indian
    Embassy or High Coumissioner or Consulate in that country, must
    be insisted upon; (viii) whether the court, while making an order
    for appointment of a foreigner as gusrdian should not insist on
    deposit being made by way of security for enabling the child to     H
    72                SUPREME COURT REPORTS      [1985] SUPP.3 s.c.R.

A   be repatariated to India, should it become necessary for any
    reason and instead a bond to be executed by the foreigner should
    be sufficient; (ix) Direction regarding extension of time of 2
    years to complete the adoption process in bona fide cases; (x)
    whether the awn of Rs.60 per day fixed as the maxlaum for
    reimbursement of maintenance expenses which may be incurred by a
B   social or child welfare agency on the child was to High and that
    it should be reduced to Rs.500 per month; (xi) whether suitable
    directions be given to district courts to expedite proceeding for
    appointment of a prospective adoptive parent as guardian of the
    child. {xii) whether the courts DBJSt require the foreign parents
    wishing to take a child in adoption to come down to India for the
    purpose of meeting the child before approving the child for
C   adoption and (xiii) what efforts be made to give a child in
    adoption to Indian parents before considering the possibility of
    Jlll].cing it in adoption with foreign parents.

          Disposing of the applications,

          llELD:l. The scrutinizing agency appointed by the Court for
D   the purpose of assisting it in reaching the conclusion whether it
    would be in the interest of the child to be given in adoption to
    the foreign parents DBJSt not in any manner be involve<! in
    placement of children in adoption. The scrutinizing agency llllllt
    be an expert body having experience in the area of child welfare
    and it should have nothing to do with placement of children in
E   adoption, for otherwise objective and impartial evaluation may
    not be possible. [80 H; 81 A-BJ

          2. The social or child welfare agency sponsoring the appli-
    cation DBJSt undertake that in case of disruption of the family of
    the foreigner before adoption can be effected it will take care
F   of the child and find a suitable alternative placement for it
    with the approval of the concerned social or child welfare agency
    in India and report such alternative placement to the Court
    handling the guardiana--ship proceedings and such information
    shall be passed on both by the court as also by the concerned
    social or child welfare agency in India to the Secretary,
G   Ministry of Social Welfare, Government of India. The social or
    child welfare agency sponsoring the application should also, in
    the event of disruption of the family of the foreigner before
    adoption can be effected, give intimation of this fact to the
    Indian Embassy or High Conmission, as the case may be, and the
    Indian Embassy or High commission shall also be kept informed
H   about the where abouts of the child so that they can take the
    necessary steps for ensuring that the child is properly taken
                      L.K. PANDEY v. U.Q.I,                    73


care of and a suitable alternative placement for it is fouml. If     A
a disruption in the family of the foreigner takes place after the
child ia adopted, oothing can be done by the social or child
welfare agency sponsoring the application, because, on adoption,
the child liOUld acquire the nationality of its adoptive parents
and liOUld then be entitled to all the rights of a national in
that country. ( 81 E-H]                                        .     B


      3. '1'he scrutinizing agency should not be asked to make any
inquiries before a child is offered in adoption to a foreigner or
a petition for appointment of a foreigner as guardian is filed in
Court. The primary responsibility for ensuring that the child is
legally free for adoption must be that of the social or child        c
welfare agency processing the application of the foreigner for
guardian-ship of the child. Whatever inquiries are necessary for
the purpose of satisfying itself that the child has been volunta-'
rily relinquished by its biological parents after umlerstanding
all the implications of adoption must be the responsibility of
the social or child welfare agency processing the application for    D
guardianship. But so far as the scrutinising agency is concerned
it should not come into the picture at this stage. It has a vital
role to play after a foreigner has approved of the child to be
taken in adoption and a petition is filed in court for appoint-
ment of the foreigner as guardian of the child and it is at that
stage that the scrutinising agency is expected to assist the         E
court in coming to the conclusion whether it would· be in the
interest of the child to be given in adoption to the foreigner.
The scrutinising agency should not at that stage try to ascertain
who are the biological parents of the child and whether they are
willing to take back the child. That is primarily the respon-
sibility of the social or child welfare agency processing the
application. The Court should, in order to make sure that the        F
child is legally free for adoption, require the social or child
welfare agency processing the application to place material
before the court stating what efforts have been made to trace the
biological parents and what are the circWDStances in which the
child came into the possession of such social or child welfare
agency. Where the court feels some doubt as to how the child has     G
been obtained and in what manner, the Court may ask the
scrutinising agency to make inquiries with a view to finding out
how the social or child welfare agency processing the application
has got the child and if the child has been obtained by such
social or child welfare agency from another institution or
agency, how that institution or agency got the child and from
what source and in what manner an<i the scrutinising agency may      H
then make discreet inqU::.~ies for this purpose without disclosing
    74                SUPREME COURT REPORTS      [1985] SUPP.3 s.c.R.

A
    to ·any orie that the child is sought to be given in adoption. The
    Court may also in an appropriate case where it has some doubt ask
    the scrutinising agency to inquire whether the child has been
    voluntarily surrendered by the biological parents or whether such
    relinquishment has been obtained by fradulent means. But unless
B   the Court so directs, the scrutinising agency should not make any
    attempt to trace the biological parents of the child or to
    inquire whether they are willing to take back the child. ( 82B;
    83A-D ]

          3. (ii) The social or child welfare agency engaged in the
    work of placing children in adoption should, not readily assume
c   that children including cradal babies who are found adandoned are
    legally free for. adoption. No children who are found abandoned
    should be deemed to be legally free for adoption until the
    Juvenile Court or the Social Welfare Department declares them as
    destitutes or abandoned. It should also be impressed upon the
    Juvenile Courts that when children are selected for adoption,
    release orders should be passed by them expediously and without
D   delay and proper vigilance in this behalf must be exercised by
    the High Courts. [83 E-G]

          4, (i) There should not be any objection in a child under
    the care of a social or child welfare agency or hospital or
    orphanage in one State being taken to another State by a social
E   or child welfare agency for the purpose of being given in
    adoption because the procedural safeguards laid down in Laxmi
    Kant Pandey's case would be sufficient to eliminate the possibil-
    ity of trafficking in children through inter-State transfer of
    children. [83 H; 84 A~]

F         (ii) By way of additional safeguard, it is directed that no
    court in a State will entertain an application for appointment of
    a foreigner as guardian of a child which has been brought from
    another State, if there is a social or child welfare agency in
    that other State which has been recognised by the Government of
    India for inter-country adoption. The social or child welfare
G   agency processing the application for guardianship should then be
    directed to send the child to the recognised social or child
    welfare agency in the other State, so that whatever proceedings
    are necessary for giving the child in adoption may be instituted
    by lhe social or child welfare agency and in such an event, 'the
    complete details of the case history and background including the
H   home study report, the child study report, if any, and all other
    information relating to the child should be made available to the
    latter social or child welfare agency. If there is no recognised
    social or child welfare agency in the State where the child is
                      L.K. PANDEY v. U.O.I.                   75

                                                                    A
fouwl or obtained, the child shall be transferred to a recognised
social or child welfare agency at the nearest place in the
inlllediate neighbouring State. [85 B-D)

      5. (i) It is necessary that prcgress reports lllUSt be
submitted to the Court and to the social or child welfare agency
                                                                    B
in India quarterly during the first two years and half yearly for
the next three years but after adoption had taken· place the
Courts may not insist on strict observance of this requirement.
The order to be made by the Court should also provide that
progress reports shall be submitted by the social or child wel-
fare agency sponsoring the application of the foreigner until
adoption is effected. That would provide greater assurance
                                                                    c
because it may not be possible to take any action if the
foreigner fails to provide progress reports, hut if the social or
child welfare agency sponsoring the application for guardianship
fails to submit progress repots, the Court can in future decline
to entertain any application for guardianship where the foreigner
                                                                    D
seekig appointment as guardian is sponsored by such social or
child welfare agency. [85 G-H; 86 A-BJ

      5. (ii) However, if there is a social or child welfare
agency owned or operated by the Government in a foreign country,
it would not be necessary for a foreigner to route his ·
                                                                    E
application through a recognised social or child welfare agency
within hia country and he can approach a recognised social or
child welfere agency in India through such Government agency.

      Where there is Government agency in a foreign country
through which applications for taking children in adoption are
routed, as in SWeden, it may not be possible to insist that the
                                                                    F
progress reports in regard to the child should be submitted by
the Government agency and in such case it may be enough to
provide in the order to be made by the Court that the progress
reports shall be submitted by the foreign parents throng the
Governent agency. [87 B-£)
                                                                    G
      6. There is no objection to a foreign social or child wel-
fare agency having a representative in India, but it is necessary
to lay down certain parameters within which such representative
can be allowed to operate. In the first place, the representative
should be an Indian citizen with a degree or diploma in social
work coupled with experience in child welfare. Secondly, the
representative should be acting only for one foreign social or
                                                                    H
child welfare agency and not more nor should he be working on a
    76               SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [1985] SUPP.3 s.c.R.

A
  free lance basis. It would also be desirable to limit the sphere
  of operation of the representative to a particular geographical
  area so that he is able to attend to his functions and duties
  properly and diligently. The representative should have a general
  power of attorney to act in India on behalf of the foreign social
B or child welfare agency and he should also have the authority to
  operate banking accounts in the name of the foreigner social or
  child welfare agency with the permission of the Reserve Bank of
  India• In order to prevent taking of children from needy parents
  by offering them monetary inducement and to eliminate trafficking
  in children the representative of the foreign social or child
  welfare agency should not be permitted to go scouting for
C childre~, or to receive children directly from parents. He should
  be allowed to act as representative only if he is recognised as
  such by the Central Government and such recognition may be given
  by the Central Government subject to the condition that the
  various requirements set out above are complied with by such
  representative. [86 D-H; 87 A]

        7. There is no need to dispense with the requirement that
D
  the certificates, declarations and documents required to be
  submitted along with the application of the foreigner for taking
  a child in adoption should be duly notarised by a Notary Public
  and the signature of the Notary Public should be duly attested
  either by an officer of the Ministry of External Affairs or
E Justice or social welfare of the Ministry of External Affairs or
  Social Welfare of the country of the foreigner or by an officer
  of the Indian Embassy or High Commission or Consulate in that
  country. [87 F-G]

        8. The Court may not ordinarily insist on making of the
F deposit by the foreigner but in an appropriate case, if it so
  thinks fit, it may pass such an order. The execution of a bond
  would ordinarily be sufficient. The lx.md should be by way of
  security for repatriation of the child to India in case i t
    becomes necessary to do ao as also for ensuring adoption of the
   child within the period two years. The bond may'" be executed by
G the foreigner who is appointed guardian of the child, but there
   may be difficulty in enforcing such bond, unless the bond is
   executed in favour of the Indian Diplomatic Mission in the
   country of the foreigner. It might therefore be safer to take the
   bond from the representative of the foreign child or social
   welfare agency in India so that if the condition of the bond is
   violated, the Court can proceed to enforce the bond against such ·
11 representative who would be an Indian national. There is also
                      L.K. PANDEY v. U.O.I.                     77

                                                                     A
antoher alternative which may be adopted by the Court. The Court
may take the bond from the social or child welfare agency which
has processed the application and such social or child welfare
agency may in its turn take a corresponding bc>nd from the
sponsoring social or child welfare agency in the foreign country.
But, though this alternative may, in a given case, be adopted by     B
the court, wher<i! the recognised social or child welfare agency
processing the application is ready to give the bond, the Court
should not insist upon execution of the bond by such social or
child welfare agency. It would be sufficient to take the bond
from the representative of the foreign social or child welfare
agency in India or to insist on the bond being executed by the       c
foreigner in favour of the Indian Diplomatic Mission abroad.
[88F; 89 A-DJ

      9, Where it is not possible for the foreigner to complete
the adoption prcess within two years, an application should be
made to the Court for extension of time for making the adoption      D
and the Court may grant appropriate extension oi time. (89 FJ

      10, The sum of Rs.60 per day, repreAents the outside limit
of the maintenance expenses which may be recovered from the
prospective adoptive parents and it does not represent the rate
at which maintenance expenses should be recoverable in every         E
case. When the Court makes an order appointing a foreigner as
guardian, the Court should look into this question and sanction
the amount to be paid by the foreigner to the social or child
welfare agency by way of reimbursement of maintenance expenses
and that only such amount as may be sanctioned by the Court shall
be recoverable by the social or child welfare agency by way of
maintenance expenses from the foreigner who is appointed guardian    F
of the child. So far as surgical or medical expenses incurred on
the child are concerned, they should also be recoverable by the
social or child welfare agency against production of bills or
vouchers. The recognised social or child welfare agency process-
ing the application must also be entitled to recover from the
foreigner who is sought to be appointed guardian of the child,       G
costs incurred in preparing and filing the application and prose-
cuting it in Court. Such expenses may include legal expenses,
administrative expenses, preparation of child study report,
preparation of medical and I.Q. reports, passport aud visa
expenses aud conveyance expenses and they may be fixed by the
Court at such figure not exceeding Rs. 4, 000 as may be though fit
by the Court. {90 !Hi; 91 A-CJ                                       H

     11, Proceedings for appointment of guardian of the child
with a view to its eventual adoption muat be disposed of at the
    78                SUPREME COURT REPORTS       [1985] SUPP.3 S.C.R.

A
    earliest and in any event not later than two months from the date
    of filing of the application. The High Court should call for
    returns from the district Court within their respective jurdis-
    diction showing every two months as to how many applicationsfor
    appointment of guardian are pending, when they were filed and if
B   more than two months have passed since the date of their filing
    why they have not been disposed of up to the date of the return.
    If any application for guardianship is not disposed of by the
    district Courts within a period of two oonths and there is no
    satisfactory explanation the High courts IDUst take a serious view
    of the matter. [91 E-G]

c         12. The Court dealing with an application for appointment
    of foreign parents as guardian need not insist on the foreign
    parents or even one of them coming down to India for the purpose
    of approving the child. In case of an older or handicapped child
    alao, it is not necessary to require the foreign parents to come
    down to India, because a complete dossier of the child consisting
    of photographs, detailed medical report, child study report and
D
    other relevant particulars is always forwarded to the sponsoring
    social and child welfare agency in the foreign country and it is
    after careful consideration of this dossier and a full and
    detailed discussion under the sponsoring social and child welfare
    agency that the foreign parents decide to accept the child to be
    taken in adoption and proceed further in the matter through the
E
    sponsoring social or child welfare agnecy. [92 D-G]

          13. (i) One of the ways in which adoption by an Indian
    family can be facilitated is to set up a centralised agency in
    the State or even in a large city where there are several social
    or child welfare agencies. Each social or child welfare agency
F
    muat feed information to the centralised agency in regard to the
    particulars of the children available with it for adoption and a
    combined list of children available for adoption with various
    social or child welfare agencies attached or affiliated to the
    centralised agency, should be circulated to all such social or
    child welfare agencies, so that if any Indian family comes to a
G
    social or child welfare agency for taking a child in adoption,
    such social or child welfare agency would be able to give full
    and detailed information to the Indian family as to which
    children are available for adoption and that with what social or
    child welfare agency. This procedure has been adopted by social
    and child welfare agencies ir Bombay. The Indian Association for
H
    Promotion of Adoption, Bombay has set up a Voluntary Co-ordinat-
    ing agency on an experimental basis • The Supreme Court wholly
                  L.K. PANDEY v. u.o.I. [BliAGWATI, C.J.]          79


    endorses and recoumends setting up of such Voluntary Co-ordinat-     A
    ing agency in each State a>Jd if circumstances so require there
    may even be more than one Voluntary Co-ordinating agencies in a
    State. [93 D-H; 94 B]

           13. (ii) Where there is a Voluntary Co-ordinating agency or
•   any other Centralised agency which maintains a register of           B
    children available for adoption as also a register of Indian
    adoptive parents, it would be enough to wait for a period of
    three to four weeks. The Voluntary Co-ordinating or Centralised
    agency can immediately contact the Indian family which is on its
    register as prospective adoptive parents and inform-them that a
    particular child is available for adoption. If within a period of    c
    three to four weeks, the child is not taken in adoption by an
    Indian 'family, it should be regi.rded as available for
    inter-country adoption. But even where it is not possible to find
    and Iodisn family which is prepared to take a child in adoption
    and it is cleared for inter-country adoption, the -first priority
    for taking the child in adoption should be given to Indians          u
    residing abroad and if no such 'Indians are available, then to
    adoptive couples where atleast one parent is of Indian origin.
    [94 D-F]

                           ORIGINAL JURISDICTION :

               CMP. Nos.   6726, 6740, 7040, 7422-23,
                           7870, 7592, 7826 & 8137-38/84
                                     IN
                Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1171 of 1982

             (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
                                                                         F
          Petitioner in person, Abdul Khader, Anil B. Divan, Ms. Jay
    Singh,, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Mrs. C.M. Chopra, R.N. Poddar, P.H.
    Parekh, P.K. Manohar, N.M. Ghatate, B.M. Bagaria, K.L. Rathee, s.
    Balakrishnan,   M.K.D.   Namboodiri,  Jagdeep   Ki.shore,  T.V.s.
    Narasimhachari, Sudesh Menon, Ms. Rani Jethmalani, Kailash
    Yasdev, Ms. Varinda Grover, Vinod Arya and Mrs. Urmila Kapoor for
                                                                         G
    the applicants.

         Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          BllAGWATI, C.J. This writ petition was -initiated on the       H
    basis of a letter addressed by the petitioner complaining of
A
    80                SUPIIBME COURT REPORTS     [1985] SUPP.3 s.c.R.


    !llSlpractices indulged in by social organisations and voluntary
    agencies engaged in the work of offering Indian children in
                                                                         -
    adoption to foreign paren.:s. Siace we found that there was no
    legislation enacted by Parliament laying down the principles and
    norms which must be observed and the procedure which nrust be
    followed in giving an Indian child in adoption to foreign
B   parents, we entertained the writ petition and after hearing a        •
    large number of social organisations and voluntary agencies
    engaged in placement of child in adoption delivered an exhaustive
     judgment on 6th February, 1984 discussing various aspects of the
    problems relating to inter-country adoption and fornrulliting the
    normative and procedural safeguards to be followed in giving an
    Indian child in adoption to foreign parents.
c
          Pursuant to the directions given by us in our Judgment in
    this writ petition, the Government of India proceeded to
    recognise various social or child welfare agencies in India for
    the purpose of inter-country adoption. The Government of India
    also, through its diplomatic missions abroad, collected names of
    the social or child welfare agencies in foreign countries
D   recognised by their respective Governments for sponsoring appli-
    cations of foreigners for taking a child in adoption and prepared
    a list of such social and welfare agencies. The Government of
    India also, in obedience to the directions given by us,
    circulated copies of the list of foreign social or child welfare
    agencies recognised by their respective Governments as also of
E   the list of social or child welfare agencies recognised by the
    Government of India for placement of children in inter-country
'   adoption, to all the High Courts in the country with a request to
    the High Courts to send copies of the two lists to the district
    Courts within their respective jurisdiction. But it seems that
    some of the social or child welfare agencies engaged in placement
F   of children in inter-country adoption felt that there were
    certain difficulties in implementing the principles and norms
    laid down by us in our judgment and various applications were
    therefore made by them asking for clarification and alteration in
    the principles an norms adopted and the procedure laid down by
    us. These applications are being disposed of by us by this c0tmn0n
G   judgment.

          The first point raised in these applications relates to the
    question whether a scrutinizing agency must be distinct from a
    placement agency. We entirely agree with the submission made by
    some social and child welfare agencies that the scrutinizing
H   agency appointed by the Court for the purpose of assisting it in
              L.K. PANDEY v. u.o.I. [BHAGWATI, c.J.J           81


reaching the conclusion .whether it would be in the interest of      A
the child to be given in adoption to the foreign parents must not
in any manner be involved in placement of children in adoption.
The scrutinizing agency must be an expert body having experience
in the area of child welfare and it should have nothing to do
with placement .of children in adoption for otherwise objective
and impartial eval'Uation may not be possible. Where therefore       B
there an institution or agency which is engaged in the placement
of children in adoption, it should not be appointed as
scrutinizing agency by the Court. The two scrutinizing agencies
usually commissioned by the Courts are the Indian Council of
Social Welfare and the India Council of Child Welfare. These two
institutions or agencies have acquitted themaelves very              c
creditably so far and the Courts may therefore continue to
entrust scrutinizing work to them, but there may also be other
scrutinizing agencies which can be employed for this purpose.
They must however be basically child welfare agencies and must
not be engaged in placing children in adoption.
                                                                     D
      The next point regarding what steps must be taken where
there is disruption in the family of the petitioner need not
detain us. We have already directed in our Judgment that the
social or child welfare agency sponsoring the application must
undertake that in case of disruption of the family of the
foreigner before adoption can be effected, it will take care of      E
the child and find a suitable alternative placement for it with
the approval of the concerned social or child welfare agency in
India and report such alternative placement to the Court handlJ.ng
the guardianship proceedings and such information shall be passed
on both by Court as also by the concerned social or child welfare
agency in India to the Secretary,· Ministry of Social Welfare,
Government of India. We would suggest that additionally the          F
social or child welfare agency sponsoring the application should
also, in the event of disruption of the family of the foreigner
before adoption can be effected, give intimation of this fact to
the Indian Embassy or High Commission as the case may be, and the
Indian Embassy or High Commission shall also be kept informed
about the whereabouts of the child so that they can take             G
necessary steps for ensuring that the child is properly taken
care of and a suitable alternative palcement for it is found. If
a disruption in the family of the foreigner takes palce after
the child is adopted, we do not think that anything can be done
by the social or child welfare agency sponsoring the application,
because, on adoption, the child would acquire the nationality of
its adoptive parents and would then be entitled to all the rights    H
of a national in that country.
    82                SUPREME COURT REPORTS      [1985] SUPP.3 s.c.R.


A          The third point raised in these applications relates to the
    role whlch a scrutinising agency is expected to play in the
    procedure relating to inter-counrty adoptions. There was
    considerable debate before us on this point and after carefully
    considering the various arguments we are of the view that the
    scrutinising agency should not be asked to make any inquiries
B   before a child is offered in adoption to a foreigner or a
    petition for appointment of a foreigner as guardian is filed in
    court. The primary responsibility for ensuring that the child is
    legally free for adoption must be that of the social or child
    welfare agency processing the application of the foreigner for
    guardianship of the child. Whatever inquiries are necessary for
    the purpose of satisfying itself that the child has been
C   voluntarily relinquished by its biological parents after
    understanding all the implications of adoption as envisaged in
    paragraph 14 of our Judgment must be the responsibility of the
    social or child welfare agency processing the application for
    guardianship. We have already laid down sufficient safeguards in
    this connection in paragraph 18 or our Judgment and it is not
    necessary to say anything more about it. But so far as the
D   scrutinising agency is concerned it should not come into the
     picture at this stage. It has a vital role to play after a
    foreigner has approved of the child to be taken in adoption and a
     petition is filed in court for appointment of the foreigner as
    guardian of the child and it is at that stage that the
     scrutinising agency is expected to assist the Court in Coming to
E    the conclusion whether it would be in the interest of the child
     to be given in adoption to the foreigner. The scrutinising agency
     should not at that stage try to ascertain who are the biological
     parents of the child and whetner they are willing to take back
     the child. That is primarily the responsibility of the social or
     child welfare agency processing the application and that is why
F    we have insisted in our Judgment it is only a social or child
     welfare agency recognised by the Government which should be
     entitled to process the application for guardianship and
     recognition must be given by the Government only after
     considering whether such social or child welfare agency enjoys
     good reputation and is known for its work in the field of child
G    care and welfare and whether it has proper staff with
     professional social work experience. The Court should, in order
      to make sure that the child is legally free for adoption, require
      the social or child welfare agency processing the application to
      place material before the Court stating what efforts have been
     made to trace the biological parents and what are the
H    circumstances in which the child came into th~ pO$Session of such
              L.K. PANDEY V• u.0.1. [BHAGIATI, c.J.]           83

                                                                    A
social or child welfare agency. Where the Court feels some doubt
as to how the child has been obtained and in what manner, the
Court may ask the scrutinising agency to make inquiries with a
view to finding out how the social or child welfare agency
processing the application has got the child and if the child has
been obtained by such social or child welfare agency from another   B
institution or agency, how that institution or agency got the
child and from what source and in what manner and the
scrutinising agency may them make discreet inquiries for this
purpose without disclosing to any one that the child is sought to
be given in adoption. The Court may also in an appropriate case
where it has some doubt ask the scrutinising agency to inquire      c
whether the child has been voluntarily surrendered py the
biological parents or whether" such relinquishment ruls been
obtained by fradulent means. But unless the Court so directs, the
scrutinising agency should not make any attempt to trace the
biological parents of the child or to inquire whether they are
willing to take back the child. We may also point out that the      D
sci;utinising agency should, while scrutinising the application,
adopt a sympathetic and sensitive approach with in-depth
ur.derstanding of the dynamies of human behaviour•

      We agree with the point made in some of these applications
that the social or child welfare agency engaged in the work of      E
placing children in adoptoin should not readily assume that
childrei\ including cradal babies who are found abandoned are
legally free for adoption. Such children must be produced before
the Juvenile Court so that further inquiries can be made and
their parents or guardians can be traced. In States where there
is no Children Act in force, such children should be referred to
tlie Social Welfare Department for making further inquiries and     F
tracing their parents or guardians. This procedure should be
completed at the latest within three months and no children who
are found abandoned should be deemed to be legally free for
adoption until the Juvenile Court or the Social Welfare Depart-
ment declares them as destitutes or abandoned. It should also be
impressed upon the Juvenile Courts that when children are           G
selected for adoption, release orders should be passed by them
expeditiously and without delay and proper vigiiance in 'this
behalf must be exercised by the High Courts.

     That takes us to the next point raised in these applica-
tions which relates to transfer of children from one State to
another for the purpose of being given in adoption. We took the     H
view in our Judgment that there should not be any objection in a
    84               SUPREME COURT REPORTS      [1985] SUPP.3 s.c.R.

   child under the care of a social or child welfare agency or
A  hospital or orphanage in one State being taken to another State
   by a social or child welfare agency for the purpose of being
   given in adoption because we felt that the procedural safeguards
   laid down by us would be sufficient to eliminate the possibility
   of trafficking in children through inter-State tranafer of
   children. We pointed out that since we are directing that every
B application of a foreigner for taking a child in adoption shall
   be routed only through a recognised social or child welfare
   agency and an application for appointment of the foreigner as
   guardian of the child shall be made to the Court only through
   such recognised social or child welfare agency, there would
   hardly be any scope for a social or child welfare agency or
   individual, who brings the child from another State for the
C purpose of being given in adoption, to indulge in trafficking and
   such a possibility would be reduced to almost nil. But it has
   been urged upon us by various social and child welfare agencies
   that it may not be desirable to permit a child to be· taken from
   one State to another for the purpose of being given in adoption
   because that would encourage representatives of foreign agencies
   as also unscrupulous persons to go scouting for children to
D different States and taking advantage of the poverty of the large
   masses of people, persuade indingent parents, by offering
   monetary inducement, to part with their children and then arrange
   to give such children in inter-country adoption through the
   instrumentality of a recognised social or child welfare' agency
   getting in the process a sizable profit for thema~lves, This
E apprehension voiced on behalf of the social or child welfare
   agencies is not altogether unjustified. But on that account alone
    it would not be right to prevent a child from being taken from
   one State to another by a social or child welfare agency for the
    purpose of being given in adoption, because at the place where a
    child is found destitute or abandoned or where the biological
F parents, who not being in a position to support the child are
    prepared relinquish it for the purpose of its being given 1J1
    adoption to a person who can take proper care of it, are livina,
    there may be no social or child welfare agency which can take the
    child for being placed in adoption. There may be a social or
    child welfare agency in another State which is in a position to
 G take care of such child and find suitable parents for giving it
    in adoption and if that be so, we do not see why such social or
    child welfare agencies should not be permitted to take the child
    from one State to another for the purpose of being given in
    adoption rather than leave it to grow up uncared for in want and
    destitution. We have laid down considerable safeguards in
H
              L.K. PANDEY v. u.o.I.   [B~ATI,    c.J.J           85


paragraph 19 of our JudgJDent in order to prevent any abuse of
                                                                       A
this practice and we are not inclined to interdict it altogether.
But we would direct by way of additional safeguard that no Court
in a State will entertain an application for appointment of a
foreigner as guardian of a child which has been brought from
another State, if there is a social or child welfare agency in
that other State which has been recognised by the Government of
India for inter-country adoption. The social or child welfare          B
agency processing the application for guardianship should then be
directed to send the child to the recognised social or child
welfare agency in the other State, so that whatever proceedings
are necessary for giving the child in adoption may be instituted
by that social or child welfare agency and in such an event, the
complete details of the case history and background including the      c
hane study report, the child study report, if any, and all other
information relating to the child should be made available to the
later social or child welfare agency. If there is no recognised
social or child welfare agency in the State where the child is
found or obtained, the child shall be transferred to a recognised
social or child welfare agency at the nearest place in the             D
immediate neighbouring State.

      There was also one other point raised by sume of the social
or child welfare agencies and that was in regard to the reports
to be made by the social or child welfare agency sponsoring the
application, after the foreigner is appointed guardian of the          E
child and he takes the child to his own country. We directed in
our Judgment that the order to be made by the Court shall include
a condition that the foreigner who is appointed guardian shall
submit to the Court as also to the social or child welfare agency
processing the application for guardianship, progress reports of
the child quarterly during the first two years and half yearly
for the next three years. But it was suggested by some social or       F
child welfare agencies that this direction should be limited only
in case of adoption of handicapped children but so far as noI'lll<ll
children were concerned, it would be enough if the progress
reports were submitted for a period of two years or until
adoption whichever event happens later. We do not think we can
accept this sugeestion wholly. It is necessary that progress           G
reports must be submitted to the Court and to the social or child
welfare agency in India quarterly during the first two years and
half yearly for the next three years but after adoption had taken
place the Courts may not insist on strict observance of this
requirement. We are of the view that the order to be made by the
court should also provide that progress reports shall be
                                                                       H
    86                SUPREME COURT REPORTS      [1985] SUPP.3 s.c.R.


A   submitted by the social or child welfare agency sponsoring the
    application of the foreinger until adoption is effected. That
    would provide greater assurance because it may not be possible to
    take (UIY action if the foreigner fails to provide progress
    reports, but if the social or child welfare agency sponsoring the
    application for guardianship fails to submit progress reports,
B   the Court can in future decline to entertain any application for
    guardianship where the foreigner seeking appointment as guardian
    is sponsored by such social or child welfare agency.

          The next point raised on behalf of some of the social and
    child welfare agencies was in regard to the role which the
    representatives of foreign agencies should be allowed to play in
c   inter-country adoption. Now there can be no objection to a
    foreign child or social welfare agency having its representative
    in India. It would undoubtedly help to ensure pr9per and timely
    medical care for the child selected for adoption as also smooth
    earring out of legal formalities in connection with guardianship
    proceedings and travel arrangements for the child to go to the
    country of its prospective foreign parents and also facilitate
o   communication between the foreign parents and the sponsoring
    social or child welfare agency on the one hand and the social or
    child welfare agency processing the application for guardianship
    on the other. We do not, therefore, see any objection to a
    foreign social or child welfare agency having a representative in
    India, but it is necessary to lay down certain parameters within
E   which such representative can be allowed to operate. In the first
    place, the representative should be an Indian citizen with a
    degree or diploma in social work coupled with expereience in
    child welfare. Secondly the representative should be acting only
    for one foreign social or child welfare agency and not more not
    should he be working on a free lance basis. It would also be
F   desirable to limit the sphere of operation of the representative
    to a particular geographical area so that he is able to attend to
    his functions and duties properly and diligently. The
    representative should have a general power of attorney to act in
  India on behalf of the foreign social or child welfare agency and
  he should also have the authority to operate banking accounts in
G the name of the foreign social or child welfare agency with the
  permission of the Reserve Bank of India. We would insist that, in
  order to prevent taking of children from needy parents by
  offering them monetary irulucement and to eliminate trafficking in
  children, the representative of the foreign social or child
  welfare agency should not be permitted to go scouting for
H children or to receive children directly from parents• He should
              L.K. PANDEY V• u.o.I. [RHAQ;ATI, c.J.]            87


be allowed to act as representative only if he is recognised as       A
such by the Central Government and such recognition may be given
by the Central Government subject to the condition that the
various requirements set out by us above are complied with by
such representative.

      We may also point out that if there is a social or child        s
welfare agency owned or operated by the Government in a foreign
counrty, it would not be necessary for a foreigner to .route his
application through a recognised social or child welfare agency
within his country and he can approach a recognised social or
child welfare agency in India through such Government agency. It
seems that in Sweden the Swedish local authority is the social or     c
child welfare agency through which applications for taking
children in adoption are routed and obviously therefore, the
application of a foreigner who is a national of Sweden can be
entertained by a recognised social or child welfare agency in
India, if it is sponsored by the Swedish local authority, we
would also lik.e to mak.e it clear that where there is a Government   D
agency in a foreign country through which applications for taking
children in adoption are routed, as in Sweden, it may not be
possible_ to insist that the progress reports in regard to the
child should be submitted by th~ Government agency and in such a
case it may be enough to provide in _the order to be made by the
Court that the progress report shall be submitted by the foreign      E
parents through the Government agency.

       Then another point was raised on bahalf of · some of the
social and child welfare agencies and that related to the
direction given by us in our Judgment that the certificates,
declarations and documents required to be submitted along with
the application of the foreigner for taking a child in adoption       F
should be duly notarised by a Notary Public and the signature of
the Notary Public should be duly attested either by an officer of
the Ministry of External Affairs or Justice or Social Welfare of
the country of the foreigner or by an officer of the Indian
llmbassy or High Conmission or Consulate in that country. It was ·
suggested on behalf of some social and child welfare agencies         G
that the requirement that the signature of the Notary Public
should be attested by one of these officials should be
dispensed with since it was likely to cause considerable
impediment in the way of the sponsoring social or child welfare
agency on account of the difficulty in obtaining the attestation
of the signature of the Notary Public by one of these officials.
Some social or child welfare agencies however opposed this            H
    88               SUPREME COURT REPORTS      [1985] SUPP.3 S.C.R,

A
  suggestion and submitted that this requirement should be
  insisted, because in practice it did not create any difficulty
  at all. It was said that this requirement is a healthy safeguard
  to ensure that the certificates, declarations and docl.Ullents
  submitted along with the application of the foreigner are
B
  genuine. We agree that there is no need to dispense with this
  requirement. So far, there has been on difficulty in obtaining
  the attestation of one of these officials and there is no reason
  why this requirement should not be insisted upon.         It is
  undoubtedly true that some delay might occur in complying with
  this requirement but such delay need not worry us, because it
  will not be long and moreover the procedure involved in this
  requirement would have to be followed at a stage before the child
c is selected for adoption by the foreigner.

          It was also submitted by some of the social or child
    welfare agencies that Court, while making an          order for
    appointment of a foreinger as guardian, should not insist on
    deposit being made by way of security for enabling the child to
    be repatriated to India, should it become necessary for any
D
    reason and instead a bond to be executed by the foreigner should
    be sufficient. Now it is true that if security by way of deposit
    is insisted upon by the Court, it may cause a certain amount of
    hardship to the foreigner because his monies would remain locked
    up in court and though after the adoption is effected by him, he
    would be entitled to return of the amount deposited, it would be
E
    difficult for him to get that amount repatriated to him in the
    foreign country. But even so we do not think that we should issue
    any direction that deposit should not be insisted upon in any
    case. It should be a matter to be decided by the Court in the
    exercise of its judicial discretion. Of course, it may not
    ordinarily insist on making of the deposit by the foreigner but
F
    in an appropriate case, if it so thinks fit, it may pass such an
    order. The execution of a bond would ordinarily be sufficient.
    The bond should be by way of secunty for repatriation of the
    child to India in case it becomes necessary to do so as also for
    ensuring adoption of the child within the period of two years.
    But a question was raised as to who should be required to execute
G
    the bond. The ·bond may be executed by the foreigner who is
    appointed guardian of the child, but there may be difficulty in
    enforcing such bond, unless the bond is executed in favour of the
    Indian Diplomatic Mission in the country of the foreigner. It
    might therefore be safer to take the bond from the representative
    of the foreign child or social welfare agency in India so that if
H
    the condition of the bond is violated, the Court can proceed to
                  L.K. PANDEY v. u.o.I. [BllAGWATI, c.J.]            89


    enforce the bond against such representative who would be an           A
    Indian national. There is also another alternative which may be
    adopted by the Court. The Court may take the bond from the social
    or child welfare agency which has processed the application and
    such social or child welfare agency may in its turn take a
    corresponding bond from the sponsoring social or child welfare
    agency in the foreign country. Ordinarily the sponsoring social        B
    or   child welfare agency would honour     the bond in case the
    condition of the bond is broken, because if it fails to do so, no
    recognised social or child welfare agency in India would in
    future deal with it. Hut, though this alternative may, in a given
    case, be adopted by the Court, where the recognised social or
    child welfare agency processing the application is ready to give       c
    the bond, the Court should not insist upon execntion of the bond
    by such social or child welfare agency. It would be sufficient to
    take the bond from the representative of the foreign social or
    child welfare agency in India or to insist on the bond being
    executed by the foreigner in favour of the Indian Diplomatic
    Mission abroad.                                                        D


          Some difficulty was pointed out to us that though
    ordinarily it should be possible to go through the procedure for
    adoption within two years, there may be instances where the
    procedure may take longer and in that event, unless there is a
    relaxing power, the failure or inability of the foreigner to           E
    complete the adoption process within two years would result in
    breach of the condition of the bond and the bond would be liable
    to be forfeited. We appreciate that this difficulty may arise in
    some exceptional cases and we must therefore ·provide   for   such a
    situation. We would direct that where it is not possible for the
    foreigner to complete the adoption process within two years, an
    application should be made to the court for extension of time for      F
    making the adoption and the Court may grant appropriate extension
    of time.

          We may again emphasise, even at the cost of repetition,
    that notice of the application for guardianship of a child should
•   in no case be published in the newspapers, because otherwise' the      G
    biological parents would come to know who is the person taking
    the child in adoption and they might, with this knowledge, at any
    time be able to trace the whereabouts of the child and they may
    try to contact the child resulting in emotional and psychological
    disturbance for the child and the possibility cannot be ruled out
    that they may also attempt to extort money from the adoptive
    parents. No notice of the application should for the same reasons      H
    90                SUPREME COURT REPORTS      (1985] SUPP.3 s.c.R.

A
    be issued to the biological parents and this is particularly
    impotrant in case of an unwed mother who has relinquished the
    child, for to disclose her name to the Court or to give her
    notice would be highly embarrassing.

B          Then a question was raised by some of the social and child
    welfare agencies that the sum of Rs.60 per day fixed by us as the
    maximum for reimbursement of maintenance expenses which may be
    incurred by a social or child welfare agency on the child was too
    high and that it should be reduced to Rs.500 per month. The
    argument in favour of reduction of the maintenance expenses from
    Rs.60 per day to Rs.SQQ per month was that if such a high amount
c   was permissible to be charged by way of maintenance expenses,
    many social and child welfare agencies engaged in palcing
    children in adoption would prefer to give the children to
    foreigners in inter-country adoption rather than to Indian
    parents, because the Indian parents would not be in a position to
    reimburse maintenance expenses at such a high rate. There is some
    force in this contention, but we should like to make it clear
D   that .the sum of Rs.60 per day, which we have provided, represents
    the otuside limit of the maintenance expenses which may be
    recovered from the prospective adoptive parents and it does not
    represent the rate at which maintenance expenses should be
    recoverable in every case. We have no doubt that the recognised
    social or child welfare agency through whom the application for
E
    guardianship is processed would take care to see that no
    exhorbitant amount is sought to be charged by the social or child
    welfare agency looking after the child, by way of maintenance
    exoenses. But we would by way of greater safeguard direct that
    when the Court makes an order appointing a foreigner as guardian,
    the Court should look into this question and sanction the amount
F   to be paid by the foreigner to the social or chlld welfare agency
    by way of reimbursement of maintenance expenses and that only
    such amount as may be sanctioned by the Court shall be
    recoverable by the social or child welfare agency by way of
    maintencance expenses from the foreigner who is appointed
    guardian of the child. So far as surgical or medical expenses
    incurred on the child are concerned, they should also be             •
G
    recoverable by the social or child welfare agency against
    production of bills or vouchers. This requirement would provide
    an adequate safeguard against trafficking in children for money
    or benefits in kind· The Court would of course, while granting
    sanction, take a practical view in this matter, bearing in mind
H   that many of the social or child·· welfare agencies running homes
    for children have meagre financial resources of their own and
             L.K. PANDEY v. u.0.1. [BHAGWATI, c.J.]           91


have to depend largely on volunta:y donations and unless            A
reasonabie maintenance expenses and actual surgical and medical
expenses are allowed to be recovered by them from the foreigner
taking the child in adoption, it might become difficult from them
to survive and to carry on their philanthropic work. The
recognised social or child ·welfare agency processing the
application must also be entitled to recover from the foreigner     B
who is sought to be appointed guardian of the child, costs
incurred in preparing and filling the application and prosecuting
it in Court. Such expenses may include legal expenses,
administrative expenses, preparation of child study report,
preparation of medical and I.Q. reports, passport and visa
expenses and conveyance expenses and they may be fixed by the       c
Court at such figure not exceeding Rs.4,000 as may be thought fit
by the Court.

      Some social and child welfare agencies made. a complaint
before us that the proceedings for appointment of a prospective
adoptive parent as guardian of the child drag on for months and     o
months in some district Courts and almost invariably they take
not less than five to six months. We do not know whether this is
true, but if it is, we must express our strong disapproval of
such delay in disposal of the proceedings for appointment of
guardian. We wish to impress upon the district Courts that
proceedings for appointment of guardian of the child with a view    E
to its eventual adoption, must be disposed of at the earliest and
in any event not later than two months from the date of filing of
the application. We would request the High Court to call for
returns from the district Courts within their respective
jurisdiction showing every two months as to how many applications
for appointment of guardian are pending, when they were filed and
if more than two months have passed since the date of their         F
filing, when they have not been disposed of up to the date of the
return. If any application for guardianship is not disposed of by
the district Courts within a period of two months and there is no
satisfactory explanation, the High Courts must take a serious
view of the matter. We were also informed that some district
Courts are treating applications for guardianship in a              G
lacadaisical manner and are not scrupulously carrying out the
directions given by us in our judgment. This defiance by the
district Courts of the direction5 given by us should not be
tolerated by the High Courts and we would request the High Courts
to exercise proper vigilance in this behalf.

     There is also one other point which must be considered at      H
this stage. Some social and child welfare agencies appearing
    92                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS    [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.

A   before us pointed out that there were instances where the Courts
    required the foreign parents wishing to take a child in adoption
    to come down to India for the purpose of meeting the child before
    approving the child for adoption. This insistance on the
    foreign parents coming down to India for giving their approval to
    the child to be taken in in adoption, it was pointed out, is
B   causing considerable hardship and inconvenience to the foreign
    parents, sometimes leading to the unfortunate situation that the
    foreign paren.ts who are unable to come down to India might give
    up the idea of taking the child in adoption. There is consider-
    able force in this argument urged on behalf of the social and
    child welfare agencies. It is obvious that foreign parents who
    belong to the middle class group would find it difficult to come
c   down to India for the purpose of seeing the child. In the first
    place, it would impose on them a certain amount of financial
    burden which may be irksome and sometimes, untolerable and
    secondly, it would be difficult for them to leave their place of
    work for the purpose of coming down to India, because they may
    not be able to get leave form their employer and if they have
    their own natural children, it may be difficult for them to leave
D   their children behind by reason of there being no one to care of
    them. The Court dealing with an application for appointment of
    foreign parents as guardian need not therefore insist on the
    foreign parents or even one of them coming down to India for the
    purpose of approving the child. We are told that the Courts
    sometimes insist on the foreign parents coming down to India for
E   the purpose of seeing the child where the child is an older or
    handicapped child. But even in such cases it is not necessary to
    require the foreign parents to come down to India, because a
    complete dossier of the child consisting of photographs, detailed
    medical report, child study report and other relevant particulars
    is always forwarded to the sponsoring social and child welfare
F   agency in the foreign country and it is after careful considera-
    tion of this dossier and a full and detailed discussion under the
    sponsoring social and child welfare agency that the foreign
    parents decide to accept the child to be taken in adoption and
    proceed further in the matter through the sponsoring social or
    child welfare agency. We would therefore suggest that, as far as
G   possible, the foreign parents or even one of them need not be
    required to come down to India for the purpose of approving the
    child. Otherwise many foreign parents desiring to adopt an older
    or handicapped child might be deterred from doing so and such
    children who are ordinarily not favoured for adoption by Indian
    parents would be left without the warmth of family life,
H
              L,K, PANDEY V• U,Q,I, [BHAQi/ATl, C.J.]           93


       'lhat takes us to the last point raised on behalf of some of   A
the social and child welfare agencies namely, that every effort
must be made to give a child in adoption to Indian parents before
considering the possibility of placing it in adoption with
foreign parents. We pointed out in our Judgm(!nt that before any
application of a foreigner for taking an Indian child in adoption
is considered, every effort must be made by tho recognised social     B
and child welfare agency to find out placement for the child by
adoption in an Indian family and whenever any Indian family
approaches a recognised social or child welfare agency for taking
a child in adoption, facilities must be provided by such social
or child welfare agency to the Indian family to have a Jook at
the children available with it for adoption and if the Indian         c
family want to see the child study report in respect of
particular child, such child study report muet also be made
available to the Indian family in order to enable the Indian
family to decide whether they would take the child in adoption.
But the question is as to how this can be done efficiently and
without any avoidable delay. One of the ways in which adoption by     D
an Indian family can be facilitated is to set up a centralised
agency in the State or even in a large city where there are
several social or child welfare agencies, Each social or child
welfare agency must feed information to the centralised agency in
regard to the particulars of the children available with it for
adoption and a combined list of children available for adoption       E
with various social or child welfare agencies attached or
affiliated to the centralised agency, should be circulated to all
such social or child welfare agencies, so that if any Indian
family comes to a social or child welfare agency for taking a
child in adoption, such social or child welfare agency would be
able to give full and detailed information to the Indian family
as to which children are available for adoption and with what         F
social or child welfare agency, We are glad to find that this
procedure has been adopted by social and child welfare 'agencies
in Bombay. 'lhe Indian Association for Promotion of Adoption,
Bombay has set up a Voluntary Co-ordinating· agency on an
experimental basis and Social and Child Welfare- agencies in
Maharashtra and especially in Amrawati, Bombay, Nasik, Nagpur and     G
Pandharpur. have joined this Voluntary Co-ordinating. These social
or child welfare agencies send to the Voluntary Co-ordinating
agency particulars of children available with them for adoption
and the Voluntary Co-ordinating agency maintains a register
showing the ·names and particulars of such children and in
addition, it also maintains a register of Indian adoptive
parents. 'lhe Voluntary Co-ordinating agency thus serves as a         H
    94               SUPREME COURT REPORTS       [1985] SUPP.3 s.c.R.


A   Co-ordinating agency to promote Indian adoptions and all children
    registered with the Voluntary Co-ordinating agency remain on its
    list for three months awaiting Indian parents. If Indian parents
    are not available for a particular child for a period of 3
    months, such child is cleared for inter-country adoption. It
    would be desirable for social and child welfare agencies in
    other States also to form a similar Voluntary Co-ordinating
B   agency. We wholly endorse and recommend setting up of such
    Voluntary Co-ordinating agency in each State and if circumstances
    so require, there may even be more than one Voluntary
    Co-ordinating agencies in a State. The only caveat which we would
    like to enter is that the period of three months adopted by the
    Voluntary Co-ordinating agency in Bombay for awaiting the arrival
    of Indian parents for taking a child in adoption, is perhaps too
c   long. We have in our Judgment observed that is only if no Indian
    family comes forward to take a child in adoption within a maximum
    period of two months, that the child may be regarded as available
    for inter-country adoption. But on further reflection we are of
    the view that even this period of two months may be regarded as a
    little too long. Where there is a Voluntary Co-ordinating agency
D   or any other Centralised agency which maintains a register of
    children available for adoption as also a register of Indian
    adoptive parents, it would be enough to wait for a period of
    three to four weeks. The Voluntary Co-ordinating or Centralised
    agency can immediately contact the Indian family which is on its
    register as prospective adoptive parents and inform them that a
E   particular child is available for adoption. If within a period of
    three to four weeks, the child is not taken in adoption by an
    Indian family, it should be regarded as available for
    inter-country adoption. But even where it is not possible to find
    an Indian family which is prepared to take a child in adoption
    and it is cleared for inter-country adoption, the first priority
    for taking the child in adoption should be given to Indians
F   residing abroad and if no such Indians are available, then to
    adoptive couples where atleast one parent is of Indian origin.

          These were the only points raised for our consideration in
    the applications made on behalf of the various social and child
    welfare agencies. We have dealt with these points in some detail
G   and we hope and trust that hereafter there will be no difficulty
    in faithfully implementing the directions given by us.