Adoption by Relatives and OCI Families: Supreme Court and Delhi High Court Question CARA’s Approach

India's adoption framework is designed to protect children and ensure that every adoption takes place through a legally regulated process. But recent court proceedings have highlighted another important concern: Can procedural requirements and bureaucratic hurdles unintentionally make it harder for children to remain with relatives or families who are ready to care for them?

Two recent developments involving the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) bring this issue into focus. In June 2026, the Supreme Court questioned CARA's opposition to the adoption of a minor girl by her maternal aunt living in the United States. A few weeks later, the Delhi High Court directed CARA to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to an OCI couple residing in Australia whose adoption of a child under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) had become caught in procedural difficulties.

Together, these cases raise an important question:

When does regulation protect a child, and when can excessive bureaucracy itself become an obstacle to the child's welfare?

Supreme Court Questions CARA Over Adoption by a US-Based Aunt

In June 2026, the Supreme Court was hearing a petition involving a 13-year-old girl and her adoptive parents, challenging CARA's position on an inter-country relative adoption.

The child's maternal aunt and uncle, who reside in the United States and are Overseas Citizens of India (OCI), had adopted the girl under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) after the death of her mother. The adoption was supported by a registered adoption deed.

The difficulty arose when the family sought to complete the process necessary for the child's relocation to the United States.

CARA had issued an Office Memorandum in February 2026 stating that where an adoption had already been completed under HAMA, the same adoption could not subsequently be processed under the Juvenile Justice Act and the Adoption Regulations, 2022 because of the provisions of Section 56 of the JJ Act.

This created a difficult situation for the family.

The child had already been adopted by close relatives, but the family argued that the interaction between Indian adoption law and the requirements of the United States had effectively left them without a workable route for completing the child's relocation.

"Why Are You Opposing Adoption by Family Members?"

During the hearing, the Supreme Court questioned CARA's approach.

The Bench questioned why the authority was opposing adoption by family members and expressed concern that bureaucratic requirements were coming in the way of a family seeking to care for a child. The Court also referred to an earlier matter involving children adopted by relatives living abroad.

The Court directed CARA to take the necessary steps for processing the application while the legal issues remained under consideration.

It is important to note that these were observations made during proceedings, rather than a final declaration that CARA's regulations are invalid.

Nevertheless, the proceedings highlight a significant policy concern: inter-country relative adoption can become particularly complicated when HAMA, the Juvenile Justice Act, CARA regulations and the receiving country's immigration and adoption requirements intersect.

A Similar Issue Before the Delhi High Court

A few weeks later, the Delhi High Court dealt with another case involving an OCI couple residing in Australia.

The child had been adopted by the couple in India under Hindu customs and subsequently through an adoption deed under HAMA. The couple then faced difficulties obtaining the NOC and Conformity Certificate required for the child's immigration process.

CARA had initially refused the NOC, stating that the procedure applicable to inter-country adoptions under Regulation 68 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022 had not been followed, including the requirement relating to a sponsorship letter from Australian authorities.

The couple argued that the Regulation 68 route was effectively unavailable because Australian authorities treated this type of adoption as an "expatriate adoption", rather than an ordinary inter-country adoption.

Delhi High Court Provides a Route Forward

Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court examined the interaction between HAMA and the Adoption Regulations, 2022.

The Court held that the case could be dealt with under Regulations 69 and 70, which provide a mechanism for children already adopted under HAMA where the adoptive parents seek to relocate the child abroad.

The Court directed the concerned District Magistrate to conduct the necessary inquiry into whether the requirements of HAMA had been satisfied.

Once the verification certificate was issued, CARA was directed to issue the required NOC within 15 days. The Court specifically directed the authorities to expedite the process while keeping in mind the welfare and future of the minor child.

This is significant because the Court did not simply remove the regulatory safeguards. Instead, it identified an existing regulatory route that could be used to resolve the family's situation.

Why HAMA and the Juvenile Justice Act Matter

One reason these cases can become complicated is that India has more than one legal framework dealing with adoption.

The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides a framework for adoption by Hindus and certain other persons covered by the legislation.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, together with the Adoption Regulations, 2022, provides another statutory framework and governs adoptions through the CARA system, including inter-country adoptions.

The interaction between these frameworks can become particularly complex when a child has already been adopted under HAMA and the adoptive parents subsequently seek to take the child abroad.

The Delhi High Court's decision demonstrates that the existence of a procedural complication does not necessarily mean that the child's relocation must remain indefinitely blocked. The Court relied on the mechanism under Regulations 69 and 70 and ordered the authorities to complete the required verification.

Child Welfare vs. Regulatory Safeguards

These cases do not suggest that adoption procedures should simply be ignored.

CARA's role exists for an important reason. Adoption regulations help protect children from trafficking, illegal transfers, exploitation and fraudulent documentation.

At the same time, the courts' interventions demonstrate that regulations must also be applied in a manner that does not unnecessarily undermine the child's welfare.

In the Delhi case, for example, the High Court did not dispense with the District Magistrate's inquiry. Instead, it required the inquiry to be completed promptly and directed CARA to act once the necessary verification was available.

This represents an important distinction:

Simplifying a process does not necessarily mean removing safeguards. It can mean making the safeguards work efficiently.

What Do These Cases Mean for Families?

For relatives, NRIs and OCIs considering adoption of a child in India, these cases highlight the importance of understanding which legal route applies before completing an adoption.

Families should not assume that an adoption validly completed under HAMA will automatically satisfy the requirements for taking the child abroad.

Similarly, an adoption involving relatives living overseas may involve additional immigration, documentation and regulatory requirements.

Obtaining professional legal advice at an early stage can help families understand whether their situation falls under HAMA, the JJ Act, the Adoption Regulations or specific provisions concerning inter-country or expatriate adoption.

A Larger Question for India's Adoption System

The Supreme Court's questioning of CARA and the Delhi High Court's subsequent intervention point towards a broader issue in India's adoption system.

The objective should be to protect children without allowing procedural complexity to become an obstacle to legitimate family relationships.

The courts have not suggested that safeguards should disappear. Rather, these cases highlight the need for authorities to interpret and implement the existing framework in a way that is child-centred, legally sound and administratively efficient.

For children being raised by relatives or adoptive families, delays can have consequences extending beyond paperwork, particularly when the child is waiting to travel, obtain immigration documents or establish a stable family life abroad.

Ultimately, adoption law must strike a careful balance: strong enough to prevent exploitation, but flexible and efficient enough to protect the best interests of children and support genuine family reunification.

The recent proceedings involving CARA show that this balance is still evolving, and India's courts are playing an important role in defining where that balance should lie.

---

The Author :

Dr. Sunil Khattri 

sunilkhattri@gmail.com

+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.