Bhagwati, C. J. - (1.)This writ petition was initiated on the basis of a letter addressed by the petitioner complaining of mal-practices indulged in by social organisations and voluntary agencies engaged in the work of offering Indian children in adoption to foreign parents. Since we found that there was no legislation enacted by Parliament laying down the principles and norms which must be observed and the procedure which must be followed in giving an Indian child in adoption to foreign parents, we entertained the writ petition and after hearing a large number of social organisations and voluntary agencies engaged in placement of child in adoption, delivered an exhaustive judgment on 6th February, 1984 Reported in AIR 1984 SC 469 discussing various aspects of the problems relating to inter-country adoption and formulating the normative and procedural safeguards to be followed in giving an Indian child in adoption to foreign parents.
(2.)Pursuant to the directions given by us in our judgment in this writ petition, the Government of India proceeded to recognise various social or child welfare agencies in India for the purpose of inter-country adoption. The Government of India also, through its diplomatic missions abroad collected names of the social or child welfare agencies in foreign countries recognised by their respective Governments for sponsoring applications of foreigners for taking a child in adoption and prepared a list of such social and welfare agencies. The Government of India also, in obedience to the directions given by us, circulated copies of the list of foreign social or child welfare agencies recognised by their respective Governments as also of the list of social or child welfare agencies recognised by the Government of India for placement of children in inter-country adoption, to all the High Courts in the country with a request to the High Courts to send copies of the two lists to the district courts within their respective jurisdiction. But it seems that some of the social or child welfare agencies engaged in placement of children in inter-country adoption felt that there were certain difficulties in implementing the principles and norms laid down by us in our judgment and various applications were therefore made by them asking for clarification and alteration in the principles and norms adopted and the procedure laid down by us. These applications are being disposed of by us by this common judgment.
(3.)The first point raised in these applications relates to the question whether a scrutinizing agency must be distinct from a placement agency. We entirely agree with the submission made by some social and child welfare agencies that the scrutinizing agency appointed by the Court for the purpose of assisting it in reaching the conclusion whether it would be in the interest of the child to be given in adoption to the foreign parents must not in any manner be involved in placement of children in adoption. The scrutinizing agency must be an expert body having experience in the area of child welfare and it should have nothing to do with placement of children in adoption for otherwise objective and impartial evaluation may not be possible. Where therefore there an institution or agency which is engaged in the placement of children in adoption, it should not be appointed as scrutinizing agency by the Court. The two scrutinizing agencies usually commissioned by the Courts are the Indian Council of Social Welfare and the India Council of Child Welfare. These two institutions or agencies have acquitted themselves very creditably so far and the courts may therefore continue to entrust scrutinizing work to them, but there may also be other scrutinizing agencies which can be employed for this purpose. They must however be basically child welfare agencies and must not be engaged in placing children in adoption.