The Delhi High Court has decided that potential adoptive parents cannot choose the kid they wish to adopt and that their wants and demands must always take second place to those of the child. Recently, Justice Yashwant Varma approved this decision again! According to Justice Varma, every child that comes into this world must be acknowledged in the law. It is because everyone has the opportunity and the fundamental right not just to exist but also to seek out their essential role in the community.
A Child Is Nothing But God’s Gift
According to Justice Varma, an adoption cannot be done for a particular kid. The answer is that every child is a gift from God. In addition, every child has a right to a family’s acceptance, nurturing, and support. Race, ethnicity, religion, or nation should have no bearing on anything.
What Was The Case About
A Maltese couple had filed a case with the Court, challenging a statement made by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA). The discussion revealed that the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights had received a complaint concerning the Specialized Adoption Agency where the child was being cared for (NCPCR).
According to the allegation, adoption laws had been broken. To allow for an investigation into the complaint, CARA asked the adoption agency to suspend the couple’s adoption petition from the appropriate Court. According to the High Court, the kid was saved on October 10, 2019, and presented before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC). She was legally made available for adoption on July 28, 2020, and was twice put up for reservation.
She was placed up for adoption in two rounds under the special needs category. The kid suffered from several medical conditions, including epilepsy.
But there was a dispute when the family of the person who had saved the girl complained, saying they had been providing for her necessities and medical costs all along and had made an application to adopt the child.
The Court Observation
The Court declared after deliberating the arguments that the complainants’ deeds were admirable and deserving of recognition. The help or assistance that may have been given to an abandoned or orphaned child cannot be used to determine the legality of an adoption or the CARA proceedings.
The judge pointed out that the complainant did not use the option to reserve the kid, and since the placement process for the child with special needs has already lasted three years, a conclusion must be granted. He continued by saying that the child’s chaotic and disorganized early years had indeed been traumatic. However, she should now discover the peace and solace of a house and a family.
The Bench also rejected the NCPCR’s complaint that many adoptions are being finalized in favor of parents who live in Malta. Since no fundamental procedural violation could be identified or shown, Justice Varma stated that he could not understand the insinuation made. In light of this, the Court nullified CARA’s communication to the adoption agency and ordered it to take additional actions to complete the adoption process following the No Objection Certificate that it had issued. With this Court declared that adoption shouldn’t be picking or choosing a particular child.