Adoption Law Insider

Shashwati Chowdhury

Published on: August 27, 2022 at 17:29 IST

The Supreme Court emphasised on Friday that it is unfair to make young couples wait three to four years to adopt a child and that the Indian adoption procedure needs to be reconsidered.

Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna, and JB Pardiwala orally told Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj in response to a plea made by a society, the Temple of Healing, to streamline the adoption procedure in India:

“The Article 32 proceedings draw attention to the deficiencies in the country’s adoption procedure, including the possibility that it may be made simpler by working on the grounds. The Union Government has stopped working on the problem and will need around six weeks to engage with all parties involved.”

“We ask a senior officer from the Ministry of Women and Child Development to meet with the petitioner in the meantime because he has specific suggestions that should be taken into consideration. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three weeks.”

The Court additionally directed the Centre to record the steps taken to streamline the adoption process after the meeting had been convened.

The Bench concluded the case by saying that,“You (the petitioner) can provide them with your submissions. Within three weeks, a meeting will be held. Mr. Natraj, you may inquire by sending them an email.”

One of the suggestions the petitioner made was to have a few qualified “Adoption Preparers” appointed by the Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance system, similar to the 2006 Income Tax Preparer Scheme. The plea stated that they can assist potential parents with completing the lengthy paperwork needed for adoption.

Because the writ petition was brought by a society, ASG Nataraj had indicated during the previous hearing that it might not be maintainable.

The Bench noted that the complex and time-consuming nature of the adoption process in India calls for attention. The Bench asked the ASG not to treat it as adversarial litigation, saying that it is a legitimate PIL.

Related Post