Case Note & Summary
By this writ petition, the petitioners, an Indian married couple, brought to the attention of the Bombay High Court an unprecedented situation concerning the applicability of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Adoption Regulations, 2022 to the adoption of a child who is a citizen of the United States of America by relatives of the child's biological parents. The petitioners were Abdulkadir Lokhandwala and Zainab Abdulkadir Lokhandwala, Indian citizens domiciled in India. Respondent No.5 Moiz Bootwala and Respondent No.6 Maria Bootwala were the biological parents of the child; petitioner No.2 was the sister of respondent No.6. The child, Mohammed Moiz, was born on 2 July 2019 in the USA and held a US passport. The petitioners, unable to bear children, desired to adopt the child from their relatives. They brought the child to India on 12 October 2019 and approached the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) to complete legal formalities. CARA refused to register them on the CARINGS portal on the ground that the Adoption Regulations did not contemplate facilitating adoption of an American citizen. Since the petitioners professed the Muslim religion and had no codified enactment regulating adoption, they filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No.58 of 2021 before the District Court, Pune, under Section 56(2) of the JJ Act, in the category of 'relative' adoption. A 2021 amendment to the JJ Act substituted 'Court' with 'District Magistrate'; this amendment was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No.1085 of 2023, and on 10 January 2023 the Bombay High Court stayed the amendment and directed that the power to decide adoption petitions remain with the District Court during the pendency of the petition. The adoption application was transferred back to the District Court, Pune, but remained pending because CARA refused to approve the adoption and submit the requisite approval letter. The petitioners also stated that US authorities were likely to refuse renewal of the child's passport without a valid adoption order, making his stay in India potentially illegal. Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the Adoption Regulations applicable at the relevant time were the Adoption Regulations of 2017; that Section 56 of the JJ Act provided for adoption of a child from a relative by another relative; that Section 51 of the Adoption Regulations 2017 contemplated the present adoption as an in-country adoption; and that Section 55 of the JJ Act detailed the procedure. They contended that Regulation 23 of the Adoption Regulations did not apply because they were Indian citizens, not NRIs, OCIs or foreign prospective adoptive parents. They submitted that the entire JJ Act was parent-centric and the procedure was based on the country of residence of the parents, not the child, and that since the child resided in India, adoption under US law did not arise. They further submitted that the Hague Convention did not apply to private adoptions but only to institutional adoptions, and that CARA could relax its guidelines under Regulation 63 of the Adoption Regulations in the interests of the child. CARA, while sympathetic, submitted that it was bound by law. It argued that neither the JJ Act nor the Adoption Regulations applied to the adoption of a child who was an American citizen; that no procedure existed for adoption of an American child by Indian parents, which was neither a 'child in need of care and protection' nor a 'child in conflict with law'; and that Regulation 23 provided only for post-adoption procedure when a child was adopted by Indian parents in the country of origin. CARA relied on Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention. The Court, after hearing the parties, reserved judgment on 7 July 2025 and pronounced it on 16 July 2025. The available excerpt does not include the final operative order, holding or reasoning beyond the record of submissions and procedural history.
Headnote
A) Adoption Law - Applicability of JJ Act and Adoption Regulations to Foreign Child - Core Legal Point: Juvenile Justice Act and Adoption Regulations may not apply to adoption of a US citizen child by Indian relatives; CARA refused to register petitioners - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Sections 56(2), 55; Adoption Regulations, 2022, Regulations 23, 63; Adoption Regulations, 2017, Regulation 51 - Petitioners sought to adopt a US citizen child born to relatives; CARA refused registration on ground regulations do not contemplate adoption of an American citizen. Petitioners contended the Act is parent-centric and jurisdiction based on child's residence; CARA argued no procedure exists under JJ Act or AR for Indian parents to adopt a foreign child unless adopted in USA first. The Court considered rival submissions and reserved the matter for final determination; no final holding is recorded in the available excerpt (Paras 2, 5, 8-10). B) Adoption Procedure - Relative Adoption Before District Court - Core: Adoption application under Section 56(2) JJ Act pending before District Court due to CARA's non-approval - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 56(2) - Petitioners filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No.58 of 2021 before District Court Pune; 2021 amendment transferring adoption matters to District Magistrate was stayed by Bombay High Court in CW P No.1085 of 2023; application remains pending as CARA refused to submit approval letter. Court noted procedural history and the impasse created by CARA's refusal (Paras 5-6). C) International Law - Hague Convention Applicability to Private Adoptions - Core: Whether Hague Convention governs private relative adoptions or only institutional adoptions - Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, Articles 5 and 17 - Petitioners submitted the Hague Convention does not apply to private adoptions but only governs institutional adoptions; CARA relied on Articles 5 and 17 to contend it is bound by international obligations. The Court heard opposing interpretations; no final ruling is recorded in the available text (Paras 9-10). D) Administrative Law - CARA's Power to Relax Guidelines - Core: Availability of relaxation under AR 63 in child's interest - Adoption Regulations, 2022, Regulation 63 - Petitioners argued CARA can relax guidelines in the interests of the child and cited instances; CARA maintained it is bound by law. The Court noted the contention regarding relaxation but did not decide in the excerpt (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Applicability of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Adoption Regulations, 2022 to the adoption of a child who is a US citizen by Indian relatives; whether CARA must register petitioners as prospective adoptive parents on CARINGS portal and issue a pre-approval letter to facilitate the adoption.
Law Points
- Applicability of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act
- 2015 and Adoption Regulations 2022 to adoption of foreign citizen child
- Section 56(2) JJ Act relative adoption
- Section 55 JJ Act adoption procedure
- CARA statutory role in inter-country adoptions
- Hague Convention applicability to private adoptions
- CARA power to relax guidelines under AR 63
- Adoption Regulations 2017 Regulation 51
- parent-centric jurisdiction based on child's residence
