Delhi High Court on Adoption: Does Accepting a Child Referral Guarantee the Right to Adopt?
Can prospective adoptive parents claim a legal right to adopt a child after an adoption authority has referred a child to them and begun processing their application?
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the answer is no if the prospective parents are legally ineligible under the applicable adoption regulations.
In a judgment delivered on October 15, 2026, the Court dismissed a Singapore-based man's challenge to the Central Adoption Resource Authority's (CARA) rejection of his inter-country adoption application. Although CARA had referred a baby girl to the couple and processed their application for a No Objection Certificate (NOC), the Court held that these administrative steps did not create an enforceable right to adopt a child when the statutory eligibility requirements were not satisfied.
At the same time, the Court identified shortcomings in CARA's procedures and directed the authority to strengthen eligibility verification, audit records and improve transparency in application processing.
The ruling raises important questions about prospective adoptive parents' rights, administrative accountability and the principle that adoption procedures must operate within the framework of the law.
What happened in this case?
According to Hindustan Times, the man and his wife had registered as prospective adoptive parents under the Non-Resident Indian category through CARA's CARINGS portal.
In January 2026, CARA referred a baby girl to the couple. They accepted the referral and subsequently submitted and resubmitted documents required for an NOC, including a power of attorney, family photographs, birth certificates of their biological children and a consent letter from their elder son.
However, CARA rejected their inter-country adoption application in March 2026.
The couple challenged the decision. The man argued that CARA had referred the child after examining their documents and that, after accepting the referral and processing the NOC application, the authority should not have reopened the question of eligibility.
He maintained that the remaining step was the issuance of the NOC and that CARA should complete the process. CARA, however, contended that the man was ineligible under the applicable adoption regulations because the couple already had two or more children.
The dispute therefore concerned whether the couple's acceptance of the referral and CARA's subsequent conduct could create a legal entitlement to proceed with the adoption despite the eligibility restriction.
What does Regulation 5(7) of the Adoption Regulations, 2022 provide?
The case involved Regulation 5(7) of the Adoption Regulations, 2022.
As reported, this provision restricts consideration of prospective adoptive couples who have two or more children to cases involving children with special needs or children considered hard to place.
The restriction is relevant because the couple already had biological children and sought to adopt a baby girl who was referred to them through the inter-country adoption process.
The dispute demonstrates why eligibility must be assessed under the applicable statutory and regulatory framework before an adoption proceeds. A child referral is an important procedural step, but it does not override the eligibility requirements governing prospective adoptive parents.
The precise eligibility position in an individual case depends on the applicable regulations and the relevant facts. Prospective parents should therefore verify their eligibility before relying on a referral as confirmation that an adoption can be completed.
Why did the Delhi High Court reject the couple's argument?
The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, dismissed the petition. The Court held that the referral of the child and the processing of the NOC application did not confer a vested or enforceable right to adopt when the prospective parents were statutorily ineligible.
It also rejected the argument that the couple could rely on the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
The Court reasoned that an expectation arising from actions of an authority that were contrary to the applicable regulations could not acquire legal protection merely because the authority had initially taken those steps. The position was particularly relevant because the procedural error had been corrected before the NOC was issued and before a final adoption decision was made.
In other words, an administrative action that is inconsistent with the governing regulations cannot, by itself, create an entitlement to an outcome that the law does not permit.
The ruling does not mean that administrative authorities can act carelessly without consequences. Rather, it distinguishes between the consequences of an authority's procedural failure and a prospective parent's legal eligibility to adopt.
Can an administrative mistake create a right to adopt?
This is one of the most significant legal principles arising from the judgment.
Administrative authorities are expected to follow the rules governing their functions. An incorrect referral, an inaccurate portal entry or the processing of an application despite an eligibility issue may cause uncertainty and distress for prospective parents.
However, the Court's reasoning makes clear that administrative conduct cannot ordinarily be used to bypass a statutory requirement. The doctrine of legitimate expectation may be relevant when a public authority has created a reasonable expectation through its representations or established practices. But such an expectation cannot generally require the authority to act contrary to law.
In the adoption context, this distinction is especially important because eligibility and procedural safeguards form part of the framework through which children are placed with prospective families.
The judgment therefore draws a line between expecting an authority to follow a fair and reliable process and claiming a right to an outcome that the applicable regulations do not permit.
Did the Court also identify failures by CARA?
Yes. Although the Court dismissed the man's petition, it issued directions aimed at improving CARA's administrative procedures.
The Court directed CARA to verify and record the eligibility of prospective adoptive parents at three important stages:
At the time of registration.
During revalidation of the Home Study Report (HSR).
Before a child is referred to prospective adoptive parents.
It also directed CARA to audit profiles that had been revalidated or updated during the migration of the designated portal, identifying and correcting discrepancies between the information submitted by applicants and the details reflected on the portal.
These directions address a practical concern: eligibility checks should occur before applicants are led to believe that an adoption can proceed.
The Court also directed CARA to adhere to prescribed timelines and ensure that application statuses on the portal accurately reflect the action taken, accompanied by brief reasons.
Importantly, an application must not be marked as “withdrawn” unless the prospective adoptive parents have specifically withdrawn it. These directions seek to improve accountability and reduce avoidable uncertainty in the adoption process.
What does the ruling mean for prospective adoptive parents?
The judgment offers several practical lessons for people considering adoption in India, particularly through the inter-country adoption process.
First, verify eligibility before relying on a referral. Registration and a Home Study Report are not substitutes for compliance with all applicable eligibility requirements.
Second, understand the significance of each procedural stage. A referral, acceptance of a child and processing of an NOC application do not necessarily mean that the adoption has been approved or that all legal conditions have been satisfied.
Third, retain records of communications and submissions. Prospective parents should preserve documents submitted through CARA, eligibility assessments, correspondence and portal updates. These records may be important if an administrative discrepancy arises.
Fourth, seek clarification promptly. If an application is delayed, rejected or marked with an unexpected status, applicants should request a written explanation and retain the response.
Finally, distinguish procedural fairness from eligibility. Applicants may have legitimate concerns about an authority's administrative failures, but a procedural error does not automatically remove a statutory restriction.
The wider legal significance: Adoption, administrative accountability and child welfare
The judgment addresses two related but distinct issues.
The first is whether prospective adoptive parents can acquire an enforceable right to adopt through a referral or other preliminary administrative steps despite being ineligible. The Court answered this question in the negative.
The second is whether CARA must maintain reliable procedures and accurate records when processing adoption applications. The Court's directions show that compliance with eligibility requirements does not excuse administrative shortcomings.
These principles must be understood alongside the protective purpose of adoption law. Adoption procedures regulate the placement of children and establish safeguards concerning the suitability and eligibility of prospective parents.
The ruling reinforces that these requirements cannot be bypassed merely because an administrative authority has initially processed an application incorrectly.
At the same time, the directions to CARA recognise that prospective parents should receive transparent, timely and accurate information about their applications. Better verification at the outset can help prevent avoidable disputes and uncertainty later in the process.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court's October 15, 2026 judgment clarifies that accepting a child referral and having an NOC application processed do not create an enforceable right to adopt when prospective parents are legally ineligible under the applicable regulations.
The Court dismissed the challenge to CARA's rejection of the application but directed the authority to strengthen eligibility checks, audit portal records, follow prescribed timelines and ensure that application statuses accurately reflect the action taken.
The decision highlights an important distinction: administrative errors should be corrected and addressed through accountable procedures, but they cannot ordinarily override statutory eligibility requirements.
For prospective adoptive parents, the practical lesson is to confirm eligibility at the appropriate stages and maintain accurate records. For CARA and other adoption authorities, the judgment is a reminder that early verification and transparent administration are essential to a fair and reliable adoption process.
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Adoption eligibility and procedures depend on the applicable law, regulations and individual circumstances. Consult a qualified adoption-law professional for advice on a specific case.
The Author :
Dr. Sunil Khattri
+91 9811618704
Dr Sunil Khattri MBBS, MS(General Surgery), LLB, is a Medical doctor and is a practicing Advocate in the Supreme Court of India and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
Comments