SHABNAM HASHMI Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2014-2-40
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 19,2014

Shabnam Hashmi Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LAKSHMI KANT PANDEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PHILIPS ALFRED MALVIN VS. Y J GONSALVIS [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SHAIKH JAMIR SAYED SAIFODDIN VS. CHIEF OFFICER, THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(BOM)-2015-10-196] [REFERRED TO]
KOMMURI SRINIWAS AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-1-105] [REFERRED TO]
"A" VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-131] [REFERRED TO]
THE TIBETAN CHILDRENS VILLAGE SCHOOL VS. KARMA LAMA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-138] [REFERRED TO]
JESHY C O VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2018-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
SHAYARA BANO VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE, BENGALURU AND ANOTHER VS. MARASHETTY [LAWS(KAR)-2016-11-96] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD ARSHAD JAMAL VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-75] [REFERRED TO]
JIJO C. GEORGE VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
DASARI RUTHAMMA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-2-80] [REFERRED TO]
BARKHA SONI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH SECRETARY, WOMENS AN [LAWS(CHH)-2017-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
JAMIR SAYED SAIFODDIN VS. THE CHIEF OFFICER, THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, JALNA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-10-43] [REFERRED TO]
BHARGAVI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-2-436] [REFERRED TO]
AKIL AHMAD VS. ABDUL HAKIM [LAWS(DLH)-2018-7-573] [REFERRED TO]
DOMENDRA KUMAR MADHARIA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-3-78] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Recognition of the right to adopt and to be adopted as a fundamental right under Part-III of the Constitution is the vision scripted by the public spirited individual who has moved this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. There is an alternative prayer requesting the Court to lay down optional guidelines enabling adoption of children by persons irrespective of religion, caste, creed etc. and further for a direction to the respondent Union of India to enact an optional law the prime focus of which is the child with considerations like religion etc. taking a hind seat.
(2.)The aforesaid alternative prayer made in the writ petition appears to have been substantially fructified by the march that has taken place in this sphere of law, gently nudged by the judicial verdict in Lakshmi Kant Pandey Vs. Union of India, 1984 2 SCC 244 and the supplemental, if not consequential, legislative innovations in the shape of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as amended in 2006 (hereinafter for short 'the JJ Act, 2000) as also The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules promulgated in the year 2007 (hereinafter for short 'the JJ Rules, 2007').
(3.)The alternative prayer made in the writ petition may be conveniently dealt with at the outset.
The decision of this Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey is a high watermark in the development of the law relating to adoption. Dealing with inter-country adoptions, elaborate guidelines had been laid by this Court to protect and further the interest of the child. A regulatory body, i.e., Central Adoption Resource Agency (for short 'CARA') was recommended for creation and accordingly set up by the Government of India in the year 1989. Since then, the said body has been playing a pivotal role, laying down norms both substantive and procedural, in the matter of inter as well as in country adoptions. The said norms have received statutory recognition on being notified by the Central Govt. under Rule 33 (2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and are today in force throughout the country, having also been adopted and notified by several states under the Rules framed by the states in exercise of the Rule making power under Section 68 of the JJ Act, 2000.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.