The Delhi High Court has ruled that prospective adoptive parents with two or more children cannot be considered for adopting a child classified as “normal” under the Adoption Regulations, 2022. The ruling, delivered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, clarifies the eligibility restrictions applicable to such couples and the circumstances in which they may be considered for adopting children with special needs or those classified as hard to place, Verdictum reported.
The judgment came in a petition filed by an Indian-origin couple residing in Singapore, who challenged the withdrawal of an adoption referral for an infant girl identified as “Baby K”. The couple already had two biological sons when the referral was made.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, sitting as a single judge, held that the referral issued by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), although accepted by the prospective adoptive parent, was contrary to Regulation 5(7) of the 2022 regulations. It therefore did not confer a vested right or legitimate expectation to adopt the child.
The Court also held that a delay in issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC) could not be treated as a deemed approval. It directed CARA to strengthen eligibility checks, audit profiles affected by a portal migration, process NOCs within prescribed timelines and ensure accurate application statuses and grievance responses.
Who is Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma?
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma is a judge of the Delhi High Court. In this case, she presided over a single-judge Bench that examined whether a couple with two biological children could challenge the withdrawal of an adoption referral under the Adoption Regulations, 2022.
Her ruling addressed the application of Regulation 5(7), which restricts the eligibility of prospective adoptive parents with two or more children for adopting a child in the normal category, subject to specified exceptions.
The judgment also examined whether an adoption referral that had already been issued and accepted could create an enforceable expectation of adoption when the prospective parents did not meet the applicable eligibility criteria.
What did Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma say about adoption by couples with two or more children?
The Court held that the petitioner, who already had two biological children, was not eligible to be considered for adopting a child in the normal category under the 2022 regulations. Such prospective parents may be considered for children with special needs or those classified as hard to place, unless the adoption falls within the specified exceptions for relatives or step-children.
The petitioner had argued that Baby K was not a normal child, or that her status had not been conclusively established, and that she could potentially fall within the hard-to-place category.
Rejecting this contention, Justice Sharma observed:
“...it is clear that in view of Regulation 5(7) of the 2022 Regulations, the petitioner could have been considered only for adoption of a special needs child or a hard to place child. The petitioner, however, has also raised a contention that Baby K was, in fact, not a normal child, or at least that her status was not fixed, and that she could also fall within the category of hard to place children...this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner, having two biological children, was not eligible to be considered for adoption of a child of the normal category under the 2022 Regulations, and that Baby K, on the material placed on record, can neither be treated as a special needs child, nor as a hard to place child. The referral of Baby K to the petitioner was, therefore, contrary to Regulation 5(7) of the 2022 Regulations”.
The Court held that a referral made contrary to the regulations could not override the statutory eligibility requirements. It also relied on Debarati Nandee v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1075, and Union of India v. Ankur Gupta, (2019) 18 SCC 276.
Why did the Delhi High Court reject the couple’s plea?
The couple registered for inter-country adoption in December 2020, when they had one biological child. Their second child was born in March 2022.
Their Home Study Report expired in December 2023 and was revalidated only in 2025. In January 2026, CARA referred an infant girl, Baby K, to the petitioner, who accepted the referral within hours.
CARA withdrew the referral on March 30, 2026, after the application status was reflected as “Application Rejected – Withdrawn”. The authority cited Regulation 5(7), under which couples with two or more children may be considered only for special-needs or hard-to-place children.
The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court on April 12, 2026. On April 13, 2026, the Court granted a status quo order and directed a fresh medical examination of the child.
The Court subsequently found that Baby K could not be classified as either a special-needs child or a hard-to-place child on the material presented before it. The latter category covers children for whom no eligible family comes forward after referral.
The Bench also held that an NOC was not merely a procedural formality and that a court could not direct an authority to act contrary to the governing regulations. It further ruled that the principle of estoppel could not operate against a statute.
What did Justice Sharma say about the child’s best interests?
The Court said that the principle of a child’s best interests could not be invoked to bypass the legal safeguards governing adoption and the placement of children with prospective families.
The Bench noted:
“...the principle of the child‘s best interests cannot be invoked to circumvent the very safeguards designed to secure suitable and lawful adoptive placements. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that, notwithstanding the circumstances in which the referral was withdrawn by CARA and the emotions of the petitioner and his family, the best interests of Baby K do not call for grant of the reliefs sought in the present petition, as one of the paramount considerations remains the child‘s placement in a suitable family – through a process that conforms to the governing statutory framework, i.e. as per the 2022 Regulations”.
The Court dismissed the petition and allowed the interim order to lapse.
What directions did the Delhi High Court issue to CARA?
Alongside its ruling on adoption eligibility, the Court directed CARA to address administrative issues in the adoption process.
The authority was directed to:
Verify the eligibility of prospective adoptive parents before generating an adoption referral.
- Audit profiles affected by the portal migration.
- Process NOCs within the prescribed timelines.
- Ensure that application statuses on the portal are accurate and include reasons.
- Fix accountability for errors and ensure appropriate responses to grievances.
- Place Baby K for adoption forthwith in accordance with law.
Why is the ruling important?
The judgment clarifies that an adoption referral does not create an automatic right to adopt a child if the prospective parents do not meet the eligibility criteria under the governing regulations.
For couples who already have two or more children, Regulation 5(7) limits consideration for adopting a child in the normal category, while providing for consideration of special-needs and hard-to-place children and specified exceptions.
The ruling also underscores the importance of eligibility verification before referrals are issued and the need for adoption authorities to process applications and NOCs within prescribed timelines.
The judgment does not impose a blanket ban on all further adoptions by parents with two or more children. Rather, it explains how the applicable eligibility restrictions operate and why the child’s best interests must be considered within the governing legal framework.