Supreme Court Upholds Adoption Referral for NRI Couple Who Acquired US Citizenship During Process — Seniority Based on First Application as Indian Prospective Adoptive Parents Not Lost. The Court held that the change in citizenship status did not automatically extinguish the seniority of the respondents, and the referral of the child made before the change was valid under the Adoption Regulations, 2017.

Civil appeal against High Court judgment directing adoption authorities to consider the respondents' application based on their first registration as Indian Prospective Adoptive Parents despite subsequent acquisition of US citizenship.

The appellants (Union of India and CARA) sought to set aside the High Court's order directing them to consider the respondents' adoption application based on their first application dated 19.07.2016.

The appellants contended that the respondents, having acquired US citizenship, were no longer eligible for in-country adoption and should be treated as Overseas Citizens of India, losing their seniority based on the first application.

The Single Judge of the High Court quashed the communication dated 15.03.2018 and directed the authorities to consider the respondents' application based on the first application. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Single Judge's order.

Whether the respondents, who initially registered as Indian Prospective Adoptive Parents but later acquired US citizenship, can retain their seniority based on the first application for in-country adoption. Whether the referral of Baby Shomya made before the change in citizenship status was valid. Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Appellants: The respondents, after acquiring US citizenship, went outside the zone of in-country adoption. Their second application as OCI should govern their seniority. There were no exceptional circumstances to deviate from the rules. Allowing the respondents to retain seniority would unfairly bypass over 22,000 waiting parents. Respondents: The Act and Regulations do not provide for a mechanism when Indian parents acquire foreign citizenship during the process. Regulation 41 contemplates a common seniority list, so they should retain their seniority. They acted bona fide, are residing in India, and the referral was made before any change was communicated. The High Court correctly exercised its discretion in exceptional circumstances.

The change in citizenship status of prospective adoptive parents during the adoption process does not automatically extinguish their seniority based on their first application as Indian Prospective Adoptive Parents, especially when they have acted bona fide and are residing in India. The authorities should consider exceptional circumstances and the common seniority list under Regulation 41 of the Adoption Regulations, 2017.

The Division Bench of the High Court vide its judgment dated 04.09.2018 dismissed the writ appeals. The Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Writ Court has rightly concluded that the appellants were not justified in denying the benefit of referral of the child, Baby Shomya, for adoption by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and that no grounds are made out for interference with the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the peculiar facts and circumstances that congeal into exceptional circumstances.

The respondents filed a writ petition (W.P. Nos. 12427-428 of 2018) challenging the communication dated 15.03.2018. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 19.06.2018. The appellants filed writ appeals (Writ Appeal No. 2259 of 2018 and Writ Appeal No. 2675 of 2018), which were dismissed by the Division Bench on 04.09.2018. The respondents also filed contempt applications (C.C.C. Nos. 1690-1691 of 2018), which were closed by the same order. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: 57, 58, 59
• Adoption Regulations, 2017: 41