Whether adopted person can obtain details about his adoption through power of attorney?

 Sub-regulation (6) of Regulation 44 undoubtedly seeks

to achieve an important purpose of not parting with

confidential and sensitive information in relation to an

adopted child to third party. The purpose for framing said

sub-regulation, therefore, can easily be appreciated.

However, when the adopted person himself or herself

appoints an attorney to act for and on his / her behalf, such

power of attorney ceases to be a third party and would

therefore not be hit by the limitation contained in subregulation

(6) of Regulation 44. A person who is appointed

as attorney acts for and on behalf of the person so

appointing him and therefore, cannot be considered to be a

third party for the purpose of Regulation 44(6). Subject to

certain safeguards, therefore, we propose to direct the

concerned respondents and in particular SARA to provide

necessary documents and further information as may be

available with it to Ms. Anjali Pawar as a duly constituted

attorney of the petitioner for such purpose.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 13670 OF 2018

Beena (Leena) Makhijani Muller Vs  The Commissioner,

Department of Women & Child

Development, Maharashtra

CORAM : AKIL KURESHI &

S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.

DATE : OCTOBER 9, 2019.

Print Page

Whether juvenile justice Act is applicable to intercountry direct adoption of child from their parents?

The Act, 2000 read with the Rules, 2007 and the
Guidelines, 2015 provides that a child is surrendered when
the parents wish to relinquish him/her to the CWC and a
formal act takes place by which the child is surrendered by
the natural parents to the CWC. Once the surrender is
complete, the parents have no role in the future of the child
and the CWC alone decides the best course for the child‟s
future before the child is adopted.
d. A child given in direct adoption cannot be termed as a
“surrendered child”, since there is no relinquishment of the
child, by the parents to the CWC.
e. The Supreme Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey (supra) as
well as Anokha (supra) and the High Court of Delhi in Dr.
Jaswinder Singh Bains (supra) and Swaranjit Kaur (supra)
have categorically and conclusively held that all intercountry
direct adoptions are outside the scope of the rules
set out for adoptions under the Act, 2000 and the
Rules/Guidelines framed there-under.
f. In view of the aforesaid binding precedents, there is no
scope for incorporation of the concept of parens patriae in
inter-country direct adoption cases under the Act, 2000,
specially when the adoption deed has been declared to be
legal, valid, genuine and binding by a competent court.
g. Rule 26 of the Guidelines, 2011 is a procedural provision
and it does not advance the case of the respondent-CARA.
h. In view of CARA, Canada's approval for adoption and its
favourable home study report as well as the decree of
declaration passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Zira, this Court is of the opinion that the
requirements of Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention
are satisfied in the present case.
i. Consequently, in cases of inter-country direct adoption like
the present case, NOC from respondent- CARA is not
required under the Act, 2000 and the Guidelines, 2011.
j. The Regional Passport Officer/MEA cannot insist on
issuance of an NOC by respondent-CARA before
processing the petitioner's application for issuing a Passport
to the adopted child.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 W.P.(C) 5718/2015 & CM APPLs. 28508/2015, 19662/2016
PKH .
v
CENTRAL ADOPTION RESOURCEAUTHORITY
THROUGH THE SECRETARY 
Date of Decision : 18th July, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Print Page