Supreme Court Slams CARA: “Why Block Family Adoptions?”
Bench questions negative stance on inter-country relative adoption
Conflict between HAMA and JJ Act leaves families in limbo
By Legal Reporter
New Delhi: June 23, 2026:
The Supreme Court of India has questioned the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) for opposing the adoption of a minor girl by her maternal aunt residing in the United States. The Court emphasized that bureaucratic hurdles should not obstruct family reunification, especially when adoption has already been validly executed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA). This case highlights the complex interplay between Indian adoption laws, the Juvenile Justice Act, and international frameworks like the Hague Convention.
1. Case Background
The petition involved a 13-year-old girl adopted by her maternal aunt and uncle, US residents and Overseas Citizens of India, after her mother’s death in 2024. The adoption was executed under a registered deed in accordance with HAMA, 1956. However, CARA later issued a clarification in February 2026 stating that once adoption is completed under HAMA, it cannot be processed under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJ Act) or the Adoption Regulations, 2022.
This interpretation effectively blocked the child’s relocation to the US, as American authorities refused to recognize HAMA adoptions under the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption.
2. Key Legal Provisions Discussed
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA): Governs adoptions among Hindus, allowing registered adoption deeds.
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJ Act): Provides a framework for adoption through CARA, including inter-country adoptions.
Section 56(3) JJ Act: States that JJ Act does not apply to adoptions made under HAMA.
Section 56(4) JJ Act: Mandates that all inter-country adoptions must follow JJ Act and CARA regulations.
Adoption Regulations, 2022 (Chapter VII & VIII): Govern inter-country relative adoptions and relocation abroad.
Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption: Requires safeguards and certification for international recognition of adoptions.
3. Court’s Observations
Negative Attitude: Justice BV Nagarathna criticized CARA’s “negative stance” toward family adoptions.
Family Reunification: The Court stressed that bureaucratic red tape should not obstruct adoption by close relatives.
Legal Conflict: The Court noted the clash between HAMA adoptions and JJ Act requirements, leaving families without a clear legal route.
Urgency: The US government’s permission for adoption was set to expire on July 20, 2026, prompting the Court to expedite hearings.
4. Implications of the Judgment
For Families: Highlights difficulties faced by relatives abroad seeking to adopt Indian children.
For CARA: Signals judicial disapproval of rigid interpretations that block family adoptions.
For International Law: Exposes gaps between Indian adoption laws and Hague Convention requirements.
For Children: Reinforces the principle that the child’s best interest must prevail over bureaucratic hurdles.
5. Broader Legal and Social Context
This case underscores the tension between personal law (HAMA) and secular law (JJ Act) in adoption matters. While HAMA provides a straightforward mechanism for Hindu families, it lacks international recognition under the Hague Convention. The JJ Act, on the other hand, ensures compliance with global standards but excludes HAMA adoptions from its scope.
The Supreme Court’s intervention reflects a growing recognition that family-based adoptions deserve special consideration, especially when they promote stability and continuity in a child’s life.
FAQ: Key Legal Points (Searchable Index Format)
Q1: Why did CARA oppose the adoption? Because the adoption was already completed under HAMA, CARA argued it could not be processed under JJ Act regulations.
Q2: What is Section 56(3) JJ Act? It states that JJ Act does not apply to adoptions made under HAMA.
Q3: What is Section 56(4) JJ Act? It mandates that all inter-country adoptions must follow JJ Act and CARA regulations.
Q4: Why is HAMA adoption problematic internationally? Because the US and other Hague Convention countries do not recognize HAMA as providing sufficient safeguards.
Q5: What did the Supreme Court say? It questioned CARA’s “negative attitude” and asked why family adoptions were being blocked.
Q6: What relief did the petitioners seek? Quashing of CARA’s February 2026 memorandum and permission to process adoption under Chapter VII of the Adoption Regulations.
Q7: What is the Hague Convention’s role? It sets international standards for inter-country adoptions, requiring certification and safeguards.
Q8: Can relatives adopt under JJ Act? Yes, Chapter VII of the Adoption Regulations allows inter-country relative adoptions.
Q9: What constitutional rights were invoked? Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (right to life) were cited, arguing that CARA’s stance violated the child’s rights.
Q10: What happens next? The Supreme Court directed CARA to continue processing the application and listed the matter for July 16, 2026.