http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 19  

PETITIONER: LAXMI KANT PANDEY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/09/1985

BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) PATHAK, R.S. SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)

CITATION:  1986 AIR  272            1985 SCR  Supl. (3)  71  1985 SCC  Supl.  701     1985 SCALE  (2)849  CITATOR INFO :  E          1987 SC 232  (4,5,6,8,9,11,13)

ACT:      Adoptions-      Inter-country adoption of children - Adoption of Indian Children by foreign parents - Principles and norms laid down by Supreme Court - Clarification and alteration of.

HEADNOTE:        The  applicants -  social or  child welfare  agencies engaged in  placement of  children in 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  India,  W.P.  (Crl.)  No. 1171/82, made the present applications seeking clarification on the  various points  " namely  (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 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 guardian of the child and he takes the child to his own country; (vi) what is the role which the  representatives of  foreign  agencies  should  be allowed to play in inter-country adoption; (vii) whether the requirement  that   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 Justice or social welfare of the country of the foreigner or by an  officer of the Indian Embassy or High Commissioner or Consulate in  that country,  must be  insisted upon;  (viii) whether the  court, while making an order for appointment of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 19  

a foreigner  as guardian  should not insist on deposit being made by way of security for enabling the child to 72 be repatriated  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 sum of Rs. 60 per day fixed as the maximum  for reimbursement of maintenance expenses which may be  incurred by  a 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 must 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 adoption and  (xiii) what efforts be made to give a child in adoption  to   Indian   parents   before   considering   the possibility of placing it in adoption with foreign parents.      Disposing of the applications, ^      HELD: 1. The scrutinizing agency appointed by the Court for 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 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 evaluation may not be possible. [80 H; 81 A-B]        2.  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 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   guardians-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,  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 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 the  necessary steps  for ensuring  that the  child  is properly taken 73 care of  and a  suitable alternative  placement  for  it  is found. If  a disruption in the family of the foreigner takes place after the child is adopted, nothing 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 of  a national in that country. [81 E-H]       3. The 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 19  

that of  the social  or child  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  voluntarily relinquished by  its biological  parents after understanding all the  implications of adoption must be the responsibility of  the  social  or  child  welfare  agency  processing  the application for guardianship. But so far as the scrutinizing 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 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  responsibility of the social or child welfare agency processing  the application.  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 circumstances 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 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 and  the scrutinising  agency may  then make discreet inquiries for this purpose without disclosing 74 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 whether  the child has  been voluntarily  surrendered by  the  biological parents or  whether such relinquishment has been obtained by fraudulent 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. [ 82B; 83A-D]        3. (ii) The social or child welfare agency engaged in the work  of placing children in adoption should not readily assume that  children including  cradle babies who are found abandoned 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  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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 19  

eliminate the possibility of trafficking in children through inter-State transfer of children. [83 H; 84 A-B]        (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 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 the  social or child welfare agency and in such an event, the complete  details of  the case  history  and  background including the  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 75 found or  obtained, the  child shall  be  transferred  to  a recognised social  or child  welfare agency  at the  nearest place in the immediate neighbouring State. [85 B-D]        5.  (i) It is necessary that progress 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. The  order to  be made  by  the  Court should also provide that progress reports shall be submitted by  the  social  or  child  welfare  agency  sponsoring  the application of  the foreigner  until adoption  is  effected. That would  provide greater  assurance because it may not be possible to  take any  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, 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. [85 G-H; 86 A-B]       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 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.        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  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 through the Government agency. [87 B-E]       6. There is no  objection to a foreign social or child welfare agency  having a  representative in India, but it is necessary to  lay down certain parameters within which 8 . h 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 child welfare agency and  not more nor should he be working on a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 19  

76 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  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  children,  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 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  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 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 bond should be by way of  security 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 two years. 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 the condition of the bond is violated, the Court can proceed to  enforce the bond against such representative who would be an Indian national. There is also 77 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. But, 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 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 foreigner in favour of the Indian Diplomatic Mission abroad. [88F; 89 A-D]        9.  Where it  is not  possible for  the foreigner  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 19  

complete  the   adoption  process   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 or time. [89 F]        10. The sum of Rs. 60 per day, represents 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 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 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 processing  the application must also  be entitled  to recover from the foreigner who is sought to be appointed guardian of the child, costs incurred in preparing  and filing  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 Court  at such  figure not exceeding Rs. 41000 as may be though fit by the Court. [90 D-H; 91 A-C]        11.  Proceedings for  appointment of  guardian of the child with  a view to its eventual adoption must be disposed of at the 78 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 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 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 months and there is no satisfactory explanation the  High courts must take a serious view of the matter. [91 E-G]      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  also, 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  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 sponsoring social or child welfare agency. [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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 19  

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 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 that with what social or child welfare agency. This procedure has been adopted by social and child welfare agencies in Bombay. The Indian Association for Promotion of Adoption, Bombay has set up  a Voluntary  Co-ordinating agency on an experimental basis. The Supreme Court wholly 79 endorses and  recommends 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. [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  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 Centralized 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 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  and 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  residing   abroad  and   if  no  such  Indians  are available, then to adoptive couples where atleast one parent is of Indian origin. [94 D-F]

JUDGMENT:                    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)       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 Kishore,  T.V.S. Narasimhachari,  Sudesh Menon,  Ms. Rani Jethmalani,  Kailash Yasdev,  Ms. Varinda Grover, Vinod Arya and Mrs. Urmila Kapoor for the applicants.      Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by       BHAGWATI, C.J. This writ petition was initiated on the basis of a letter addressed by the petitioner complaining of 80 malpractices  indulged   in  by   social  organisations  and voluntary agencies  engaged in  the work  of offering Indian children in adoption to foreign parents. Since we found that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 19  

there was  no legislation  enacted by Parliament laying down the principles  and norms  which must  be observed  and  the procedure which  must be  followed in giving an Indian child in adoption  to foreign  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  formulating  the normative and procedural safeguards to be followed in giving an Indian child in adoption to foreign parents.       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 recognised by their respective Governments for sponsoring applications 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 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 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  common 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 agency appointed by the Court for the purpose of assisting it in 81 reaching the  conclusion whether it would be in the interest of 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 evaluation may not be possible. Where  therefore 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 themselves  very 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 19  

    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  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 guardianship proceedings ant 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 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, ant the Indian Embassy or High Commission shall also be  kept informed about the whereabouts of the child so that they  can take  necessary steps  for ensuring  that the child is  properly taken  care of and a suitable alternative placement for  it is found. If a disruption in the family of the foreigner  takes place 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 to of a national in that country. 82      The third point raised in these applications relates to the role  which a scrutinizing agency is expected to play in the procedure  relating to intercountry adoptions. There was considerable debate  before  us  on  this  point  and  after carefully considering  the various  arguments we  are of the view that  the 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  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  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  scrutinizing 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 scrutinizing agency is expected  to assist the 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 responsibility of the social or  child welfare  agency processing  the application and that  is why we have insisted in our Judgment it is only

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 19  

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  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 circumstances in which the child came into the possession of such 83 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 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 whether  the child has  been voluntarily  surrendered by  the  biological parents or  whether such relinquishment has been obtained by fraudulent 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  scrutinising agency should, while scrutinising the application, adopt a sympathetic and sensitive approach with in-depth understanding of the dynamics 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  placing children  in  adoption  should  not readily assume that children including cradle 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  the  Social  Welfare Department for  making further  inquiries and  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 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 expeditiously and without delay and proper vigilance in this behalf must be exercised by the High Courts.        That  takes us  to the  next point  raised  in  these applications which  relates to transfer of children from one State to another for the purpose of being given in adoption. We took  the view  in our  Judgment that there should not be any objection in a 84 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 or child welfare agency for the purpose of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 19  

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 transfer of children. We pointed out that since we are directing that every 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 mate  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 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  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 ant  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 themselves.  This 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 parents,  who not  being in a position to support the child  are prepared relinquish it for the purpose of its being given in adoption to a person who can take proper care of it,  are living,  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 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  could 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 85 paragraph 19  of our  Judgment in order to prevent any abuse of 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  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  home 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 19  

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 immediate neighbouring State.        There  was also one other point raised by some 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 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 child welfare agencies that this direction should  be limited  only in  case of  adoption  of handicapped children  but so  far as  normal  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  suggestion  wholly.  It  is  necessary  that  progress 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 86 submitted by  the social  or child welfare agency sponsoring the application of the foreigner until adoption is effected. That would  provide greater  assurance because it may not be possible to  take any  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, 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   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 proper and timely medical care for the child selected for  adoption   as  also   smooth  carrying   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   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 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 child welfare agency and not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 19  

more not  should he  be working  on 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 or  child welfare  agency and he should also have the authority to  operate banking  accounts in  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  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 children or  to receive  children directly  from parents. He should 87 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  by  us  above  are complied with by such representative.        We  may also  point out  that 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 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  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 like to  make it  clear that  where there  is  a  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  progress  reports  in regard to  the child  should be  submitted by the 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 parents through the Government agency.       Then another point was raised on behalf 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 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  Embassy or High Commission or Consulate in  that country.  It was  suggested on  behalf of some social  and child welfare agencies that the requirement that the  signature of  the Notary Public should be attested by one  of these officials should be dispensed with since lt 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 88 suggestion and  submitted that  this requirement  should  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 19  

insisted,  because   in  practice  it  did  not  create  any difficulty st  all. It  was said  that this requirement is a healthy  safeguard   to  ensure   that   the   certificates, declarations  and   documents  submitted   along  with   the application of  the foreigner  are 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 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 foreigner 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 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 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 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 security 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 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  the condition of the bond is violated, the Court can proceed to 89 enforce the bond against such representative who would be an 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  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. But,  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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 19  

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.        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 relating  power, the failure or inability of the foreigner to  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 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  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 90 be issued to the biological parents and this is particularly important 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.        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. 500  per month  was that  if  such  a  high  amount  was permissible to  be charged  by way  of maintenance expenses, many social  and child  welfare agencies  engaged in placing 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 that the sum of Rs. 60 per day, which we have  provided,  represents  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 case.  We have  no doubt that the recognised social or child  welfare  agency  through  whom  the  application  for 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  expenses.  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  to  be paid by the foreigner to the social or child welfare agency by  way of  reimbursement of maintenance expenses and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 19  

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  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.  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 that many of the social  or child  welfare  agencies  running  homes  for children have meagre financial resources of their own and 91 have to  depend largely  on voluntary  donations and  unless reasonable 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  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 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 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 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 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  lackadaisical manner and  are not scrupulously carrying out the directions given by  us in  our judgment. This defiance by the district Courts of  the  directions  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 this  stage.  Some  social  and  child  welfare  agencies appearing 92 before us  pointed out  that there  were instances where the Courts required  the foreign parents wishing to take a child

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 19  

in adoption to come down to India for the purpose of meeting the child  before approving  the child  for  adoption.  This insistence on  the foreign  parents coming down to India for giving their  approval to the child to be taken in adoption, it was  pointed out,  is causing  considerable hardship  and inconvenience to  the foreign  parents, sometimes leading to the unfortunate  situation that  the foreign parents who are unable to  come down  to India  might give  up the  idea  of taking the child in adoption. There is considerable 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 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  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 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 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  sponsoring social or  child welfare  agency. We would therefore suggest that, as far as 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. 93        That  takes us  to the last point raised on behalf of some of   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 Judgment that  before any  application of  a  foreigner  for taking an  Indian child  in adoption  is  considered,  every effort must  be made  by the  recognised  social  ant  child welfare agency  to find  out  placement  for  the  child  by adoption in  an Indian family and whenever any Indian family approached 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  look at  the children available with it for adoption and if  the Indian family want to see the child study report in respect of particular child, such child study report must also be  mate available  to the  Indian family  in order  to enable the  Indian family  to decide whether they would take

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 19  

the child  in adoption.  But the  question is as to how this can be tone efficiently ant without any avoidable delay. 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 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 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 social or child welfare agency. We  are glad  to find  that the  procedure had  been adopted by  social and child welfare agencies in Bombay. The 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 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.  The  Voluntary  Co-ordinating agency thus serves as a 94 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   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 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  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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 19  

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 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  and we hope and trust that hereafter there will be no  difficulty in  faithfully implementing the directions given by us. M.L.A. 95