New Delhi:In an order likely to help Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) couples overcome bureaucratic hurdles in inter-country adoption, the Delhi High Court has directed the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to issue a no-objection certificate (NOC) to an Australia-based couple, enabling travel documents to be prepared for their adopted child.
The HC order brings legal clarity into inter-country adoptions carried out under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA) that have remained blocked because the CARA has refused to give such adoptive couples an NOC. In the absence of this crucial document, couples have been unable to complete adoption formalities, forcing them to stay away from their adopted child.
The dispute between CARA and OCI adoptive parents centered on which regulation applies in the case of adoption under HAMA. While CARA claims it is Regulation 68, the couple states it is Regulation 69.
Regulation 68 requires adoptive couples to secure sponsorship of the application by the Central Authority or Authorized Foreign Adoption Agency (AFAA) in the receiving country. Under Regulation 69, CARA clearance or NOC allows such parents to apply for the necessary visa and immigration approvals for the child from the country where they reside at the time of adoption.
Though the HC order by Justice Sachin Dutta came on an Australia-based couple’s request to direct CARA to issue them the NOC, it is expected to set a precedent for similar cases stuck in bureaucratic limbo.
Speaking to ThePrint, advocate Dhanur Dhar, who appeared for the petitioner, explained the import of the HC order. He said even though the Centre has repeatedly told the Supreme Court that HAMA adoptions are independent and not subject to any clearance by a foreign agency, CARA’s regulations don’t reflect this position.
“Regulation 68, which CARA impresses upon in inter-country adoptions done under HAMA, demands sponsorship from a foreign central authority. Many foreign countries don’t provide or recognize HAMA adoptions and insist on CARA’s NOC. But compliance becomes impossible because CARA keeps blocking NOCs on the ground that adoptive parents have not followed the procedure under Regulation 68, something which is not mandatory in HAMA adoptions,” Dhar said.
He added that Regulation 68 would kick in only if a couple adopts a child under the Juvenile Justice Act, which follows a completely different procedure.
“As a result, families were forced to live split apart; with one parent staying back in India with the child, while the other worked abroad, shuttling between countries for years,” he said.
Justice Dutta’s order on 1 July came on a petition filed in 2025 by Dhar’s clients who approached the HC because CARA had refused to issue an NOC to them, citing Regulation 68.
Born on 20 June, 2023, the child was adopted in accordance with the Hindu customs on 27 June 2023 by the petitioners, who hold Australian citizenship and are registered as OCI.
An adoption deed was executed under HAMA on 5 March, 2024. A birth certificate was issued in the name of the petitioner on 6 November 2024, recording the couple as adoptive parents.
On 12 March, 2025, the parents applied through CARINGS, CARA’s portal, seeking the NOC. The same was rejected on 19 June 2025, observing non-compliance with Regulation 68.
During the argument, senior advocate Arundhati Katju told the court that compliance with Regulation 68 was impossible as Australian law did not process adoptions executed under HAMA. She drew support from last year’s Bombay High Court order, which noted that in adoptions within close relatives under HAMA or adoptions classified as expatriate adoptions, recourse to Regulations 69 should be made.
She then referred to a letter sent to the couple that classified their adoption as an expatriate.
While noting that the Australian government’s email to the couple required them to ensure that the adopted child meets all immigration criteria to enter and remain in Australia, Justice Dutta’s bench observed that for the said purpose CARA’s NOC was necessary.
He, thereafter, directed CARA to issue the certificate, rejecting its argument that the same cannot be done in the absence of a sponsoring letter from the receiving country, which is Australia in the present case.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: Madras HC order loosens a shackle in surrogacy law. Why it’s a big win for reproductive autonomy