Introduction:
The case of Akshay Pitamber Sarvakar & Anr. v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors. came before the Gujarat High Court in a petition highlighting the complexities that arise in inter-country adoption processes, particularly when domestic adoptions under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 intersect with international legal requirements. The petitioners, an Indian couple residing in the State of Victoria, Australia, approached the Court seeking directions to facilitate the recognition and completion of the adoption and immigration process of twin minor girls. The twins were born on 22 February 2022, and tragically, their biological mother, who was the petitioner’s sister, passed away just one day after their birth. Subsequently, the biological father of the children consented to their adoption by the petitioners, who formally accepted the minors and executed an adoption deed on 29 September 2022, duly registered before the Sub Registrar at Gandhinagar. The petitioners’ names were also reflected as parents in the birth records of the children. However, difficulties arose when the petitioners attempted to complete the immigration formalities in Australia, as the authorities in the State of Victoria did not accept adoptions completed solely under HAMA without additional certification and recognition under international adoption frameworks. Consequently, the petitioners sought intervention of the High Court to direct the Central Adoption Resource Authority and the District Magistrate to issue necessary certificates including a No Objection Certificate, Support Letter, and verification order to enable the adoption to be recognised internationally. The matter was heard by Justice Hemant M Prachchhak, who was called upon to balance the procedural requirements of adoption law with the paramount consideration of the welfare and best interests of the minor children.
Arguments:
On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that the adoption of the twin girls was validly completed in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The petitioners emphasised that the adoption was not only lawful but was also carried out in the best interests of the children, who had lost their mother immediately after birth. It was contended that the biological father had voluntarily consented to the adoption and that all formalities including execution and registration of the adoption deed had been duly complied with. The petitioners further submitted that the adoption was recognised in Indian records as reflected in the birth certificates of the minors where the petitioners were recorded as parents. Despite this, the petitioners faced significant hurdles in obtaining recognition of the adoption by Australian authorities due to the absence of certain certificates required under international adoption norms and regulations. It was argued that the State of Victoria required documentation such as a No Objection Certificate or Support Letter from the Central Adoption Resource Authority and a verification or adoption order from the District Magistrate confirming the validity of the adoption. The petitioners submitted that they had already made detailed representations to CARA along with all necessary documents seeking ex post facto registration of the adoption under the Adoption Regulations and issuance of the required certificates. However, CARA had responded that the process must be initiated by the receiving country through its own portal, thereby creating a procedural impasse. The petitioners argued that this technical requirement should not be allowed to defeat the rights of the children and the adoptive parents, especially when the adoption had already been lawfully completed. They further contended that the delay in issuance of the required certificates was adversely affecting the immigration process of the minors and causing uncertainty regarding their legal status in Australia. The petitioners also sought interim relief in the form of a support letter acknowledging the adoption, which could be presented before Australian authorities pending final certification.
On the other hand the respondents including the Central Adoption Resource Authority and the District Magistrate defended their position by referring to the procedural framework governing inter-country adoptions. It was submitted that CARA operates under specific regulations which require compliance with prescribed procedures for recognition of adoptions, particularly when the adoption is to be recognised in a foreign jurisdiction. The respondents contended that the process for inter-country adoption typically requires initiation from the receiving country and adherence to the Hague Convention norms or the non-Hague route as applicable. It was further argued that the authorities could not bypass these procedures and issue certificates without following the prescribed mechanism. The respondents maintained that they were bound by the statutory regulations and could not act beyond the scope of their authority. However, they did not dispute the factual aspects of the case including the execution of the adoption deed and the relationship between the parties. The respondents also did not deny that the petitioners had submitted all relevant documents in support of their application. The issue thus essentially revolved around the procedural requirements and the manner in which the adoption could be recognised for the purpose of international immigration.
Judgment:
The Gujarat High Court, after considering the submissions and examining the factual matrix, partly allowed the petition and issued directions aimed at facilitating the completion of the adoption and immigration process. Justice Hemant M Prachchhak observed that the paramount consideration in such matters is the welfare and best interests of the minor children. The Court noted that the adoption had taken place shortly after the birth of the twins and that the formal adoption deed had been executed and registered on 29 September 2022. The Court also took into account the fact that the petitioners had already been recognised as parents in the official records including the birth certificates of the children. In light of these circumstances the Court held that there should be no impediment in the way of considering the petitioners’ case for issuance of the required certificates. The Court directed the concerned authorities including CARA and the District Magistrate Gandhinagar to consider the petitioners’ application and issue the necessary certificates as required by the Australian authorities. The Court further directed that if any additional documentation was required the petitioners should furnish the same within a period of one week and the authorities should process the application in accordance with law taking into account the relevant Adoption Regulations 2022. The Court emphasised that the adoption took place on 29 September 2022 and that the children were born on 22 February 2022 and these facts must be borne in mind while considering the application.
The Court also provided a mechanism to address any procedural difficulties by permitting the petitioners to appear before the Registrar through their legal representatives to make necessary submissions. It directed that upon such representation the entire exercise should be completed by the authorities within a period of four weeks from the date of hearing. Importantly the Court directed CARA to issue a Support Letter in the prescribed format which would enable the petitioners to proceed with the immigration process and obtain recognition of the adoption in Australia. The Court further directed that the No Objection Certificate should be issued in accordance with the format prescribed by the Supreme Court in the case of Prema Gopal ensuring compliance with established legal standards. The judgment thus harmonised the domestic legal framework under HAMA with the requirements of international adoption procedures and sought to remove procedural bottlenecks that were hindering the rights of the petitioners and the welfare of the children. By issuing these directions the Court ensured that the adoption would be recognised both in India and abroad thereby securing the future of the minor children.