SMT. ANOKHAversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

A                                SMT. ANOKHA
                                         V.
                  THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

                              DECEMBER 8, 2003

B            [RUMA PAL AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.]

           Guardian and Wards Act, 1890-Section 7-Adoption by foreign
    nationals-:-Requirements for-Mother of child agreeable to give her child
    in adoption to a known foreign couple-Material produced by foreign
C   couple to show their suitability to be adoptive parents-Conditions of
    guidelines laid down by Minist1y of Welfare pursuant to judgments of the
    Court not strictly fulfilled-Held, guidelines not applicable where the
    biological parents of the child themselves give child in adoption--Court
    has to see whether child is being voluntarily given in adoption, the evidence
D   produced by adoptive parents of their suitability and the interest of the
    child.

         Respondents No. 2 and 3 are an Italian couple. On their visit to
    India they were using the taxi of the husband of the appellant to tour
    the country. The husband of the appellant died and respondents No.
E   2 and 3 expressed their desire to adopt one of the six childre111 of the
    appellant.

          Respondent No. 2 and 3 filed petition before the District Judge
    under the provisions of the Guardian an Wards Act, 1890 for adoption
F   of the appellant's child. In support of their petition they filed several
    documents showing their financial and social status, their background
    and their suitability for adopting a child. The appellant filed an
    affidavit stating that she had no objection to the adoption of the child
    by respondents No. 2 and 3. The Social Welfare Department also
G   recommended that the child could be given in adoption.

         The District Judge rejected the petition of the respondents No. 2
    and 3 on the ground that the conditions of guidelines framed by the
    Ministry of Welfare, Government of India had not been complic!d with.
    The said guidelines were framed pursuant to the judgment of the Court
H   in Lakshmi Kant Pandey"· Union of India, [19~412sec244. Under the
                                         514
                          SMT. ANOKHA v. STATE                          515

    guidelines the child must be sponsored by a Social or Child Welfare A
    Agency recognized or licensed by the Government of the country in
    which the foreigner is the resident. The guidelines further stipulated
                \
    that a 'no objection certificate' was required from Central Adoption
    Resource Agency (CARA), Ministry of Welfare, Government oflndia.

        The appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, which
                                                                               B
    dismissed the appeal. The appellant, thereafter, filed appeal before the
    Court by way of special leave petition.

        Allowing the appeal and laying down certain conditions, the
    Court                                                                      c
         HELD : 1. The High Court and the District Judge erred in not
    considering the material produced by respondents No. 2 and 3 in
    support of their application for adoption and in rejecting the applica-
    tion under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 solely on the basis of D
    the guidelines framed by the Ministry of Welfare. [520-A)

         2.1. The decision in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India has
    referred to three clauses of children : (i) children who are orphaned
    and destitute or whose biological parents cannot be traced; (ii) children
    whose biological parent are traceable but have relinquished or surren- E
"   dered them for adoption; (iii) children living with their biological
    parents. The third category has been expressly excluded from consid-
    eration as far as the decision was concerned "for in such class of cases,
    the biological parents would be the best persons to decide whether to
    give their child in adoption to foreign parents". The reason is obvious. F
    Normally, no parent with whom the child is living would agree to give
    a child in adoption unless he or she was satisfied that it would be in
    the best interest of the child. That is the greatest safeguard. The
    directions which have been given in the decision are limited to the first
    and second categories of children. (520-F-H; 521-A)
                                                                               G
          Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union ofIndia, (1984) 2 SCC 244, referred
    to.

         2.2. The guidelines framed by the Ministry of Welfare do not
    relate to regulation of the adoption procedure to be followed in respect H
    516                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A of third category of children, namely, children with their biological
    parents who are sought to be given in adoption to a known coupl1e as
    is the situation in this case. It is only where there is the impersonaHzed
    attention of a placement authority that there is a need to closely
    monitor the process including obtaining a no objection certificate tirom
B   the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA), Ministry of Welfare,
    the sponsorship of the adoption by a recognised national agency and
    the scrutiny of the inter-country adoption by a recognised Voluntary
    Co-ordinating Agency (VCA). Indeed CARA has been set up under the
    guidelines for the purpose of eliminating the malpractice indulged in
C   by some unscrupulous placement agencies particularly the trafficking
    in children. (522-D-F]

         2.3. None of the several decision of the Court impinge upo111 the
"   rights and choise of an individual to give his or her child in adoption to
    named persons, who may be of foreign origin. The Court in such <:ases
D   has to deal with the application under Section 7 of the Guardians and
    Ward Act, 1890 and dispose of the same after being satisfied that the
    child is being given in adoption voluntarily and after being aware (]1fthe
    implication of adoption viz. that the child would legally belong to the
    adoptive parents family, uninduced by any extraneous reasons sm~ as
E   the receipt of money etc.; that the adoptive parents have produced
    evidence in support of their suitability and finally that the arrangement
    would be in the best interest of the child. (523-G-H; 524-A-B)

          Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India & Anr., (1985) Supp SCC
F 701; Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, [1987] 1 SCC 66; Lakshmi
    Kant Pandey v. Union of India & Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 33; Suman/al
    Chhotalal Kamdar & Ors. v. Asha Trilokbhai Shah (Miss) & Ors., (1995]
    3 SCC 700; Karnataka State Council for Child Welfare & Anr. v. Society
    of Sisters of Charity St. Gerosa Convent and Others, (1995) Supp. 4 SCC
    529; Indian Council Social Welfare & Ors. v. State ofA.P. & Ors., [1999]
G   6 sec 365 and Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India & Ors., [:?001)
    9 sec 379, referred to.

        3. In the present case; although the guid~lines framed by the
    Ministry of Welfare do not apply, respondents No. 2 and ~I had
H   produced evidence which fulfilled all the particulars required! of a
             SMT. ANOKHA v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.]                      517

Home Study Report. The appellant has repeatedly affirmed her A
closeness to respondents No. 2 and 3 and the conviction that they would
nourish and care for the baby a if she was their own. Respondents No.
2 and 3 have produced sufficient evidence to justify their suitability to
be adoptive parents. (524-B-D)

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9631 of B
2003.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2002 of the Rajasthan
High Court in C.M.A. No. 733 of 2002.
                                                                            c
     S.B. Sanyal, Ajay K. Sharma, Bankey Behari, Vijay Singh and K.K.
Rai for the Appellant.

    Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, V.N. Raghupathy, Ranji Thomas, Ms. Bharati
Upadhayaya and Amit Shukla for the Respondents.
                                                                            D
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted.

      Baby Alka Singh is the daughter of Smt. Anokha and Sumer Singh E
Yadav. Sumer Singh Yadav was a taxi driver. The Respondents no. 2 and
3 are Italian nationals. During their frequent visits to India either singly
or jointly for the last 20 years, they used Sumer Singh's taxi to tour the
country. About three years ago, Sumer Singh died as a result of an accident
which took place after he had dropped the respondents no.2 and 3 at their
destination. Sumer Singh and Anokha, the appellant before us, had six F
children, five of whom were girls. After Sumer Singh's death, the
respondents no. 2 and 3 who at that point of time had no children of their
own wanted to adopt one of the girls viz., Baby Alka. Smt. Anokha agreed.

     In January 200 I, a petition was filed by the respondents no. 2 and G
3 under Sections 7, l 0 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in
the Court of District Judge, Alwar in which it was stated inter a/ia that they
were issue-less, that they were responsible citizens, that they have their
own business and have a very good income, that they own moveable and
immovable properties in Italy, that they would love and look after the well H
    518                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   being of Baby Alka and provide her the best education and milieu at Italy.
    In support of their application, the respondents No. 2 and 3 filed the
    following material before the District Judge:

             1.   A certificate of the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Venice
                  to the effect that there were no criminal proceedings pending
B                 against either of them;

             2.    Report of the Family Advisory Bureau of the local Health
                   Office consequent upon investigation made giving the fam-
                   ily background of the respondents, the present financial
c                  status, their vocation, their social status and their personality.
                   The conclusion in the report was that the couple had been
                   married since 1986 and they always wished to have a natural
                   child and another adopted one. They had till the date of the
                   report been unsuccessful in having a child o_f their own;
D
             3.    A certificate of the psychologist and a social worker relating
                   to their residential accommodation, the marital harmony
                   between the respondents no. 2 and 3 and their parental
                   competency;

E            4.    A certificate of citizenship issued by the municipal authori-
                   ties;

             5.    A decree of the Juvenile Court of Venice on the basis of the
                   material collected declaring that the couple was "well-
F                  balanced, mature, cohesive, conscious of the problems con-
                   cerning adoption" and that they were "suitable to adopt a
                   minor of foreign nationality";

             6.    Income Tax records certifying solvency;

G            7.    A certificate issued by the Chamber of Commerce, Industry
                   and Agriculture, Venice relating to the business carried on
                   by respondent No. 2.

          The District Judge issued notices to the Social Welfare Department
H   of the State ofRajasthan as well as to the appellant and also directed notices
              SMT. ANOKHA v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.]                      519

to be published in the local newspapers of the proposed appointment of A
the respondents no. 2 and 3 as the guardians of Baby Alka. The notices
were duly published. The appellant filed an affidavit before the District
Judge in which she stated that she had known the respondents no. 2 and
3 for the last 20 years and she had no objection if they were appointed
guardians of her baby daughter. A report was also filed on behalf of the B
Dy. Collector, Social Welfare Department, Alwar on 26.7.2001 recom-
mending that the child could be given in adoption. The rep01t was
submitted after investigating into the financial status of the late Sumer
Singh's family and ascertaining the wishes of the appellant Anokha. Both
the respondents also appeared before the District Judge and reiterated on C
oath that they would look after the child and were competent to do so
physically, financially and emotionally.

      The District Judge however was of the view that since the adoption
was sought to be effected by a foreign couple, the Guidelines prescribed
for 'Adoption of Indian Children' issued by the Ministry of Welfare, D
Government oflndia (referred to hereafter as 'the Guidelines') would have
to be followed. The Guidelines require that child must be sponsored by
a Social or Child Welfare Agency recognized or licensed by the Govern-         ...
ment of the country in which the foreigner is the resident. It was, therefore,
held that unless an authorised age!1CY in Italy submitted an enquiry report E
and a 'No Objection Certificate' was issued by the Ministry of Welfare,
Government of India, no application for appointment of foreigners as
guardians could be presented to the Court. The District Judge held that
the Guidelines would apply irrespective of whether the child's biOlogical
parents were alive or not.
                                                                             F
      On the rejection of the application, an appeal was preferred by the
appellant to the High Court. The High Court was also of the view that
the Guidelines applied to this case. It, therefore, directed the respondents
no.2 and 3 to make a fresh application for being appointed guardians after
the same was sponsored by the Social or Child Welfare Society recognised G
or licensed by the Government of Italy. In addition, the High Court said
that the respondents no. 2 -and 3 would have to get a No Objection
Certificate from the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA). In the
event they did not obtain such ce1tificate, their application for guardianship
would not be entertained.
                                                                             H
    520                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A        The appellant has approached this Court under Article 136 of the
    Constitution. She has reiterated the stand taken by her before the High
    Court and the District Judge, namely, that the Guidelines issued by the
    Ministry of Welfare relating to the adoption of Indian Children did not
    apply in the case of adoption of children living with their biological parents
B   and that the guidelines only applied to cases where the child was destitute
    or abandoned or living in Social or Child Welfare Centres. This Court
    issued notices to the respondents on 28th April, 2003. A counter affidavit
    was filed by the State opposing the Special Leave Petition.

           In our view, the High Court and the District Judge erred in not
C considering the material produced by respondents no. 2 and 3 in support
    of their application and in rejecting the application under the Guardians
    and Wards Act, 1890 solely on the basis of the guidelines. The background
    in which the guidelines were issued was a number of decisions of this
    Court, the first of which is Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, AIR
D   (1984) SC 469: [1984] 2 sec 244. This is borne out from the stated object
    of the guidelines as set out in paragraph 1.1. thereof which "is to provide
    a sound basis for adoption within the frame work of the norms and
     principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the series of
    judgments delivered in L.K. Pandey v. Union of India and Others between
E    1984 and 1991". The original decision of the Court was taken on the basis
    ofa letter written by one Laxmi Kant Pandey complaining ofmal-practices
    indulged in by social organisations and voluntary agencies engaged in the
    work of offering Indian children in adoption to foreign parents. The
    judgment has considered the problem at great length after affidavits were
F   filed not only by the Indian Council of Social Welfare but also by Foreign
    Organisations and Indian Organisations which were engaged in offering
    and placing lndian children for adoption by foreign parents. Th(: decision
    has referred to three classes of children: (i) children who are orphaned and
    destitute or whose biological parents cannot be traced; (ii) children whose
    biological parents are traceable but have relinquished or surrendered them
G   for adoption; and (iii) children living with their biological parnnts. The
    third category has been expressly excluded from consideration as far .as the
    decision was concerned "for in such class of cases, the biological parents
    would be' the best persons to decide whether to give their child in adoption
    to foreign parents" 1• The reason is obvious. Normally, no parent with -
H   l.    Ibid paragraph 11 of the Report.
              SMT. ANOKHA v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.]                         521

whom the child is living would agree to give a child in adoption unless A
he or she was satisfied that it would be in the best interest of the child.
That is the greatest safeguard.

     The directions which have been given in the decision are limited to
the 1st and Ilnd categories of children with more stringent requirements B
being laid down in respect of children in the first category of cases. As
far as adoption of children falling within the second category are con-
cerned, the requirements are not so stringent. All that is required is that2:

          " ..... they (viz., the biological parents) should be properly assisted
         in making a decision about relinquishing the child for adoption, C
         by the Institution or Centre or Home for Child Care or social or
         child welfare agency to which the child is being surrendered.
         Before a decision is taken by the biological parents to surrender
         the child for adoption, they should be helped to understand all the
         implications of adoption including the possibility of adoption by D
         a foreigner and they should be told specifically that in case the
         child is adopted, it would not be possible for them to have any
         further contact with the child. The biological parents should not
         be subjected to any duress in making a decision about relinquish-
         ment and even after they have taken a decision to relinquish the
         child for giving in adoption, a further period of about three months
                                                                                  E
         should be allowed to them to reconsider their decision. But once
         the decision is taken and not reconsidered within such further time
         as may be allowed to them, it must be regarded as irrevocable and
         the procedure for giving the child in adoption to a foreigner can
         then be initiated without any further reference to the biological F
         parents by filing an application for appointment of the foreigner
         as guardian of the child. Thereafter, there can be no question of
         once again consulting the biological parents whether they wish to
         give the child in adoption or they want to take it back ....."
                                                                                G
    · The aforesaid observations only pertain to children who have been
or are sought to _be relinquished or surrendered for adoption in general to
a placement agency or other institution where there is no contact between
them and the adoptive parents at all and not to cases whc,re the c~ild is

2.   AIR 1984 SC 469 Para 14.                                                   H
    522                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A living with his/her parent/parents and is agreed to be given in adoption to
    a particular couple who happen to be foreign.

          This decision has been subsequently modified. but reaffirmed in
    several decisions. In all the subsequent cases, the modification, if any, has
B   pertained to adoptions through institutions i.e. the first or second category
    of children. (See: Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India & Anr., [1985]
    (Supp.) SCC 701, Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, [1987] l SCC
    66, Lakshmikant Pandey v. Union of India & Ors., [1991] 4 SCC 33,
    Suman/al Chhotalal Kamdar & Ors. v. Asha Trilokbhai Shah (Miss) &
    Ors., [I 995] 3 SCC 700, Karnataka State Council For Child We~'Gre &
C   Anr. v. Society of Sisters of Charity St. Gerosa Convent and others, [1995]
    Supp. 4 SCC 529, Indian Council Social Welfare & Ors. v. State of A.P.
    & Ors., [1999] 6 SCC 365 and Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India
    & Ors., [2001] 9 sec 379.)

D         The guidelines have formulated various directives as given by this
    Court in the several decisions and do not relate to regulation of the adoption
    procedure to be followed in respect of third category of children, namely,
    children with their biological parents who are sought to be given in
    adoption to a known couple as is the situation in this case. It is only where
E   there is the impersonalized attention of a placement authority that there is
    a need to closely monitor the process including obtaining of a no objection
    certificate from the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA), Ministry
    of Welfare, the sponsorship of the adoption by a recognised national
    agency and the scrutiny of the inter-country adoption by a recognised
    Voluntary Coordinating Agency (VCA). Indeed CARA has been set up
F   under the guidelines for the purpose of eliminating the malpractice
    indulged in by some unscrupulous placement agencies particularly the
    trafficking in children.

         Under the guidelines, the Home Study Report to be enclosed with an
G   application for adoption must be routed through a foreign and enlisted
    agency which must be an @{!listed agency in India with a copy to CARA.
    The Home Study Repo11 is required to contain the following particulars:

             (a) Social Status and family background;

H            (b) Description of Home;
____.
                      SMT. ANOKHA v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.]                     523

                (c)   Standard of living as it appears in the Home;                  A
                (d)   Current relationship between husband and wife;

                (e)   Current relationship between the parents and children (ifany
                      children);
                                                                                     B
                (f)   Development of already adopted children (if any);

                (g)   Current relationship between the coup.le and the members of
                      each other's family;

                (h)   Employment status of the couple;                               c
                (i)   Health details such as clinical test, heart condition, past
                      illness etc. (medical certificate etc.);

                G)    Economic status of the couple;                                 D
                (k)   Accommodation for the child;

                (I)   Schooling facilities;

                (m) Amenities in the Home;                                           E
                (n)   Reasons for wanting to adopt an Indian child;

                (o)   Attitude of grand-parents and relatives towards Adoption;

                (p) Anticipated plans for the adoptive child;                        F
                (q)   Legal status of the prospective adopting parents.

              The report is required to be notarised which must in tum be attested
        either by an Officer of the Ministry of External Affairs or an Officer of
        the Justice or Social Welfare Department of the foreign country concerned G
        or by an Officer of the Indian Embassy or High Commission or Consulate
        in that country.

             None of these prov1s10ns in the several decisions of this Court
        impinge upqn the rights and choice of an individual to give his or her child H
    524                SUPREME COURT RErORTS (2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   in adoption to named persons, who may be of foreign origin. The Coui1
    in such cases has to deal with the application under Section 7 of the
    Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and dispose of the same after being
    satisfied that the child is being given in adoption voluntarily after being
    aware of the implication of adoption viz. that the child would legally
B   belong to the adoptive parents family, uninduced by any extraneous
    reasons such as the receipt of money etc; that the adoptive parents have
    produced evidence in support of their suitability and finally that the
    arrangement would be in the best interest of the child.

          In the case before us although the guidelines do not apply, the
C   respondents No. 2 and 3 had produced evidence which fulfilled all the
    particulars required of a Home Study Report. The appellant has repeatedly
    affirmed her closeness to the respondents no.2 and 3 and her conviction
    that they would nourish and care for baby Alka as if she was their own.
    The respondents no. 2 and 3 have produced sufficient evidence to justify
D   their suitability to be adoptive parents. There was a judicially directed
    scrutiny by a local Governmental Agency in Venice. The enquiry report
    has resulted in a judgment passed by the Court at Venice, Italy. That
    judgment can be accepted by this Court under Section 13 of Code! of Civil
    Procedure, particularly when the respondents have filed the invc!stigation
E   report and other material on the basis of which the judgment was delivered.

          In the circumstances of the case, the decision of the High Court is
    set aside and the application of the respondents no. 2 and 3 filed under the
    Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is allowed. The respondent Nos. 2 and
    3 are appointed guardians of the child A!ka the daughter of Anokha and
F   late Sumer Singh with liberty to take her to Italy for the purpose of adopting
    her in accordance with Italian law. However, before the child is taken out
    of the country the following conditions must be complied with:

             (1)   The respondents No. 2 and 3 will file an affidavit before the
                   District Court, Alwar with an undertaking to adopt the child
G                  within two years and to produce the child, if so ri~quired, till
                   proof of adoption is filed with the District Court;

             (2)   The respondents No. 2 and 3 shall keep in depcisit with the
                   District Court an amount of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thou-
H                  sand only) to cover the air fare for the possible repatriation
               SMT. ANOKHA v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.]                     525
               of the child to India till the child is legally adopted; the A
               amount shall be kept by the District Court in a short term
               fixed deposit with any Nationalised bank and the Fixed
               Deposit Receipt is to be held to the credit of the minor, Alka.
               Upon proof of her adoption by the respondents No. 2 and
               3 the amount deposited shall be forthwith returned to the said B
               respondents or their duly authorised representative together
               with the interest accrued thereon.

         (3)   The respondents No. 2 and 3 must undertake by affidavit
               filed before the District Court to submit annual reports to the
               District Court of the child's welfare and progress in school C
               with photographs and to inform the District Court of any
               change of address till the child is legally adopted.

      The Registry of this Court is directed to send two copies of this
judgment together with two copies of the affidavit of the appellant dated D
 1st October 2003 and the annexures thereto to the CARA, Ministry of
Welfare, Government oflndia one set of which is to be retained by CARA
and the other forwarded by it to the relevant Indian Diplomatic Mission
in Italy for their record in the event any follow up action is. necessary.

     The appeal is allowed and disposed of as above.                         E
B.K.M.                                                    Appeal allowed.