- (1.) In Laxmikant Pandey V. Union of India (1984) 2 SCR 795: (AIR 1984 SC 469) this Court laid down the procedure to be followed in adoption of children by foreigners. The Court observed the fact that children are a supremely important national asset and the future well being of the nation depends upon how the children grow and develop. It quoted with approval the report of the Study Team on Social Welfare where it was said: "The physical and mental health of the nation is determined largely by the manner in which it is shaped in the early stages." This Court also quoted with approval from the National Policy for the Welfare of Children where it was said: "The nation's children are a supremely important asset. Their nurture and solicitude are our responsibility. Children's programme should find a prominent part in our national plans for the development of human resources, so that our children grow up to become robust citizens, physically fit, mentally alert and morally healthy, endowed with the skills and motivations needed by society. Equal opportunities for development to, all children during the period of growth should be our aim, for this would serve our larger purpose of reducing inequality and ensuring social justice. "
(2.) Thus saying, this Court laid down the procedure to be followed and while doing so, the Court referred to recognised child welfare agencies and provided for their licensing or registration by the Central Government. Petitioners in this application are some of the licensed welfare agencies contemplated under the judgment of this Court and petitioner No. 2 is the Central Voluntary Adoption Resources Agency which is a co-ordinating unit based at Delhi.
(3.) In these applications petitioners have made the following prayers: (a)(i) All Government/juvenile homes, nursing homes and hospitals - Government or private, will apply for declaration of a child as abandoned and free for placement and if the parents of the child are not known, such children should be transferred to the recognised institution/ placement agency as requested for by them within a fixed time frame; (ii) all recognised placement agencies depending upon their capacity to accommodate and care for those children after accounting for their age and qualification should be allowed to seek transfer of those children from Government/juvenile Courts and nursing homes/hospitals and such institutions should be obliged to transfer the children to such placement agencies; (iii) Juvenile Welfare Boards/ Courts should allow the aforesaid transfers in favour of the recognised agencies for rehabilitation through gardianship/ adoption from VCAs/ CVARAs or otherwise; (iv) Juvenile Welfare Boards/ Courts should not disturb the custody of children abandoned directly with the recognised placement agencies when approached for declaring them as abandoned and free for placement and such orders may be passed ex parte and confirmed after notice to the concerned parties; (b)(i) Quota fixed by the Central Government for placement of children with Indian families may be quashed as being contrary to the decision in Laxmikant Pandey's case; (ii) in the alternative, if this Court upholds the validity of the circular fixing the quota, the percentage may be suitably reduced; iii) this Court may direct that if the quota is to be fixed, children with handicaps, medical problems and other drawbacks should be excluded from the total count as also girls above one year and boys above two years of age should be excluded from counting; (c) The State Governments and the various Union Territories should be directed to issue birth certificates based upon attested copies of Court's certificate (decree), adoption deed or on the basis of affidavits of officials of the licensed agencies; (d) This Court may approve by way of revision of expenses by about 25% with effect from the date of the application and another 10% increase annually to enable the agencies to maintain high standards of care for the children; (e) The Indian children adopted abroad or to be allowed to retain their citizenship/ nationality till they attain the age of majority wherever they should exercise their option one way or the other; (f)(i) The Central Government should be directed to act by itself or through the State/ Union Territory Governments to issue show cause notice before refusing to extend recognition and grant personal hearing before taking official action and reasoned orders should be made in support of such action; (ii) In the event of cancellation of recognition, a time frame should be fixed to clear all the cases already in the pipeline for being processed; (iii) An appellate authority should be prescribed for challenge of governmental action as stated above; (g)(i) The Court may direct stay of governmental action in the matter of setting up of Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) and ultimately hold that there was no longer any need for such an agency in view of the fact that many private agencies were not available to monitor the programme.;