SMT. ANOKHA versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 514 · Decided: 08-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SMT. ANOKHA 
V. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 8, 2003 
[RUMA PAL AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
Guardian and Wards Act, 1890-Section 7-Adoption by foreign 
nationals-:-Requirements for-Mother of child agreeable to give her child 
in adoption to a known foreign couple-Material produced by foreign 
C couple to show their suitability to be adoptive parents-Conditions of 
guidelines laid down by Minist1y of Welfare pursuant to judgments of the 
Court not strictly fulfilled-Held, guidelines not applicable where the 
biological parents of the child themselves give child in adoption--Court 
has to see whether child is being voluntarily given in adoption, the evidence 
D produced by adoptive parents of their suitability and the interest of the 
child. 
Respondents No. 2 and 3 are an Italian couple. On their visit to 
India they were using the taxi of the husband of the appellant to tour 
the country. The husband of the appellant died and respondents No. 
E 2 and 3 expressed their desire to adopt one of the six childre111 of the 
appellant. 
Respondent No. 2 and 3 filed petition before the District Judge 
under the provisions of the Guardian an Wards Act, 1890 for adoption 
F of the appellant's child. In support of their petition they filed several 
documents showing their financial and social status, their background 
and their suitability for adopting a child. The appellant filed an 
affidavit stating that she had no objection to the adoption of the child 
by respondents No. 2 and 3. The Social Welfare Department also 
G recommended that the child could be given in adoption. 
The District Judge rejected the petition of the respondents No. 2 
and 3 on the ground that the conditions of guidelines framed by the 
Ministry of Welfare, Government of India had not been complic!d with. 
The said guidelines were framed pursuant to the judgment of the Court 
H in Lakshmi Kant Pandey"· Union of India, [19~412sec244. Under the 
514 
" 
SMT. ANOKHA v. STATE 
515 
guidelines the child must be sponsored by a Social or Child Welfare A 
Agency recognized or licensed by the Government of the country in 
which the foreigner is the resident. The guidelines further stipulated 
\ 
that a 'no objection certificate' was required from Central Adoption 
Resource Agency (CARA), Ministry of Welfare, Government oflndia. 
The appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, which 
dismissed the appeal. The appellant, thereafter, filed appeal before the 
Court by way of special leave petition. 
Allowing the appeal and laying down certain conditions, the 
Court 
B 
c 
HELD : 1. The High Court and the District Judge erred in not 
considering the material produced by respondents No. 2 and 3 in 
support of their application for adoption and in rejecting the applica-
tion under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 solely on the basis of D 
the guidelines framed by the Ministry of Welfare. [520-A) 
2.1. The decision in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India has 
referred to three clauses of children : (i) children who are orphaned 
and destitute or whose biological parents cannot be traced; (ii) children 
whose biological parent are traceable but have relinquished or surren- E 
dered them for adoption; (iii) children living with their biological 
parents. The third category has been expressly excluded from consid-
eration as far as the decision was concerned "for in such class of cases, 
the biological parents would be the best persons to decide whether to 
give their child in adoption to foreign parents". The reason is obvious. F 
Normally, no parent with whom the child is living would agree to give 
a child in adoption unless he or she was satisfied that it would be in 
the best interest of the child. That is the greatest safeguard. The 
directions which have been given in the decision are limited to the first 
and second categories of children. (520-F-H; 521-A) 
Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 244, referred 
to. 
G 
2.2. The guidelines framed by the Ministry of Welfare do not 
relate to regulation of the adoption procedure to be followed in respect H 
516 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A of third category of children, namely, children with their biological 
parents who are sought to be given in adoption to a known coupl1e as 
is the situation in this case. It is only where there is the impersonaHzed 
attention of a placement authority that there is a need to closely 
monitor the process including obtaining 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.