Citing Supreme Court precedent on ensuring ‘complete justice’, Telangana HC returns 3 children to adoptive parents despite procedural lapses

The matter dates back to May 2024, when the Medipally police station registered FIRs and took custody of the children from the petitioners’ homes, handing them over to government child care institutions.

In all three instances, the petitioners had approached the High Court single bench, which ruled in their favour. The state challenged this in its appeals, and the division bench allowed the competent authority to decide the petitioners’ adoption applications within a specified period.

The petitioners filed these new writ petitions because the respondent authorities, following the Division Bench orders, declared the children “legally free for adoption” instead of returning them to the petitioners.

While one of the petitioners had adopted a four-day-old boy from an unmarried college student who could not support the child, another petitioner had paid Rs 1,50,000 to biological parents who already had four girls and offered their fifth child for adoption. The third petitioner had adopted a baby boy through a private recommendation from a doctor.

The primary legal conflict centred on the non-compliance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and CARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority) guidelines. The government pleader for women and child welfare department argued that the children were “purchased” and hence constitute child trafficking.

The counsel maintained that adoptions were illegal because they were neither registered under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act nor carried out in accordance with CARA’s statutory queue. The counsel contended that the petitioners were either financially unstable or facing pending criminal cases.

Petitioners cite lack of evidence of abuse or ill-treatment

On the contrary, the petitioners, through their counsels, stressed the existence of strong emotional bonds and the performance of traditional adoption rituals. They also cited lack of any evidence of abuse or ill-treatment. They also argued that these were not “abandoned” children or “children in need of care and protection” under the Juvenile Justice Act since they were taken from known sources.

In reaching its conclusion, the bench relied heavily on the Supreme Court of India’s intervention in a related batch of cases (Dasari Anil Kumar and Another Vs. The Child Welfare Project Director and Others). The apex court had invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do “complete justice,” prioritising the child’s bonding with the adoptive parents over procedural lapses.

Despite the lack of CARA registration, the courts found that the children were well-cared for and that returning them to institutional care caused distress. The Court concluded that while legal proceedings regarding the adoption procedure or criminal charges may continue, the child’s immediate custody must favour the environment in which the child has already formed a bond