“The statutory procedure and the statutory regime, which is prevalent as on date and is equally applicable to all aspirants, i.e., Indian prospective adoptive parents and prospective adoptive parents for inter-country adoption, cannot be lost sight.”
The Supreme Court has observed that even if the common seniority list has to be utilised for the purpose of in country adoption and inter-country adoption, the difference between in country adoption and inter-country adoption cannot be lost sight of or given a go by. A couple, eager to adopt a child, submitted an application on 19.07.2016 through Central Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System (CARINGS) to adopt a child as Indian Prospective Adoptive Parents. While this application was pending, one of them acquired US citizenship (the other was already one). On 01.01.2018, Baby Shomya was referred for adoption by the couple. However, the authority informed them that, their request for permission to continue the first application dated 19.07.2016, as Indians living in India Prospective Adoptive Parents, was declared as invalid, because they are not Indian Prospective Adoptive Parents anymore. They were further informed that they will, instead, have to wait for a referral of another child as 'Overseas Citizen of India'.
They filed writ petition before Delhi High Court, which directed the Authority to examine the request of the couple on the basis of their first application dated 19.07.2016 expeditiously. The Union of India then approached the Apex Court challenging this order. (Union of India vs. Ankur Gupta)
The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph observed that, since both had become US citizens by 06.12.2016, they were not eligible for adoption as Indian prospective adoptive parents living in India. Mere fact that Act or Regulations does not provide for any mechanism to upload any further information in first registration cannot alter the legal position and consequences of acquiring the foreign citizenship by an Indian, the court said. The court also dealt with the contention that, prior to Regulations, 2017, there were two separate seniority lists, which were maintained under the Guidelines, 2015, which has been now made a single seniority list. The bench said:
The court also dealt with the contention that, prior to Regulations, 2017, there were two separate seniority lists, which were maintained under the Guidelines, 2015, which has been now made a single seniority list. The bench said: