Case at a Glance
An NRI couple in Singapore registered to adopt in 2020 with one child; a second son was born in 2022, after which the Adoption Regulations, 2022 barred couples with two or more children from adopting a ‘normal’ child. In January 2026 CARA’s portal nonetheless referred an infant girl to them, they reserved and visited her, and CARA later rejected their NOC as ineligible. The Delhi High Court held that the referral was contrary to Regulation 5(7), that no vested right or legitimate expectation arises from an act done against the regulations, and dismissed the petition, while directing CARA to adopt institutional safeguards against such lapses.
The petitioner and his wife, originally from India and settled in Singapore, registered as prospective adoptive parents (PAPs) in the NRI category on 21.12.2020, when they had one son. Under the 2017 Regulations, only couples with three or more children were barred from adopting a normal child. Their second son was born in March 2022, and the Adoption Regulations, 2022, in force from 23.09.2022, lowered the bar: under Regulation 5(7), couples with two or more children can be considered only for special-needs or hard-to-place children (unless adopting a relative or stepchild). Their home study report expired in December 2023 and was revalidated only in 2025, recording both sons.
On 21.01.2026 the portal referred an infant, classified as medically ‘Normal’, and the couple reserved and visited her. CARA kept saying the NOC was under consideration, then on 30.03.2026 the application showed as ‘Rejected – Withdrawn’ though no withdrawal had been filed, and the infant was referred to another family. CARA told the Mission that the couple was ineligible under Regulation 5(7), attributing the error to portal migration. The couple filed a writ petition, and the High Court directed status quo regarding the infant in April 2026.
The Key Question Before the Court
Once CARA has referred a child and the prospective parents have accepted, can CARA later refuse the NOC because the parents were never eligible under Regulation 5(7), and does the referral create a vested right or legitimate expectation?
An Error Cannot Create Eligibility
The Court held that the petitioner, having two biological children at revalidation and referral, fell within Regulation 5(7), which applies to all PAPs including NRIs and is backed by Section 57(5) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It followed Debarati Nandee v. Union of India, (2024) 02 DEL CK 3750, which upheld applying Regulation 5(7) to pending applications and held that “at any step/stage a decision can be taken to disqualify a PAP” before the District Magistrate’s order, and Union of India v. Ankur Gupta, where the Supreme Court held the statutory regime must prevail even where PAPs had accepted a child. Whether a child has special needs is a medical question, and a reserved infant is not ‘hard to place’. The referral “was, therefore, contrary to Regulation 5(7).”
The NOC stage is a real level of scrutiny, not a formality; CARA’s delay, “though worthy of strong disapproval of this Court, cannot result in a deemed NOC.” Citing Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, (2017) 11 SC CK 0025, the Court held that no legitimate expectation can be founded on acts done in contravention of statutory regulations, and there is no estoppel against a statute. On the child’s best interests, relying on the JJ Act and Temple of Healing v. Union of India, (2023) 11 SC CK 2601, it said the emotions of PAPs, “howsoever genuine, cannot be the sole basis,” and the best-interests principle “cannot be invoked to circumvent the very safeguards” of the system. It nonetheless recorded serious lapses by CARA: a false ‘withdrawn’ status, unsupported assurances, and harm to the next family.
What the Court Actually Held
- Under Regulation 5(7) of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, a couple with two or more children cannot be considered for a normal child, and this applies to NRI applicants and to applications pending when the rule came in.
- A referral made in error does not create a vested right, a deemed NOC or a legitimate expectation; a PAP can be disqualified at any stage before the District Magistrate’s adoption order.
- The child’s best interests cannot be used to bypass eligibility safeguards; the writ petition was dismissed and the status quo order vacated, with CARA to place the infant in adoption in accordance with law.
- CARA was directed to verify eligibility at every stage, audit profiles revalidated during portal migration, follow the NOC timeline, keep accurate portal statuses with reasons for rejection, and fix accountability and issue SOPs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Prospective adoptive parents with two children now have a clear answer on eligibility for a normal child under the 2022 Regulations.
- The directions to CARA address recurring complaints of portal errors, unexplained status changes and delayed NOCs.
- It confirms that adoption rights crystallise only with the District Magistrate’s order, not at referral or reservation.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Prospective Adoptive Parents
- Update CARA promptly about any change in family size and check eligibility under Regulation 5(7) before revalidating.
- A referral or reservation is not final; keep records of all communications and challenge unexplained status changes.
For Counsel
- Arguments of legitimate expectation or estoppel will not succeed where the referral itself breached the regulations.
- Focus on procedural lapses and seek directions for fair treatment, priority or reconsideration in permissible categories.
Key Takeaways
- Two or more children means no normal-child adoption under the 2022 rules.
- Referral errors do not create rights.
- No deemed NOC from CARA’s delay.
- CARA must tighten eligibility checks and portal accuracy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a couple with two children adopt a normal child in India?
Under Regulation 5(7) of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, as applied in this Delhi High Court judgment, a couple with two or more children can be considered only for special-needs or hard-to-place children, unless the child is a relative or stepchild.
Does a CARA referral give adoptive parents a right to the child?
No. The Court held that a PAP may be disqualified at any stage before the District Magistrate’s adoption order, and a referral made contrary to the regulations creates no vested right or legitimate expectation.
What did the Court direct CARA to do?
It directed CARA to verify eligibility at registration, revalidation and before referral, audit profiles from the portal migration period, follow the NOC timeline, keep portal statuses accurate with reasons for rejection, and fix accountability and issue SOPs.
Conclusion
The judgment is a painful one for the family involved, and the Court acknowledged their distress and CARA’s failings. But it held that the adoption system’s eligibility rules, designed for thousands of waiting families and children, cannot be bent by an administrative error.
Practical takeaway: Prospective adoptive parents should verify their eligibility under the current Regulations at every stage; counsel should press for procedural fairness and systemic directions where CARA errs, rather than claim a right born of the error.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com