Regulation 69 Verification as a Substitute Route for CARA NOC in Post-17.09.2021 HAMA “Expatriate” Adoptions Where Regulation 68 Sponsorship Is Impossible

1. Introduction

The Delhi High Court in MS.KARNIKA KHANDELWAL, REPRESENTED BY ABHINAV KHANDELWAL AND HEMA PANDEY v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (2026 DHC 5217, decided on 01.07.2026) addressed a recurring problem in inter-country movement of children adopted under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) by OCI/NRI parents residing abroad—particularly in Australia—where the receiving country’s central adoption authority may refuse to “sponsor” such adoptions, classifying them as “expatriate adoptions” outside its regulated inter-country adoption program.

The petitioner was a minor child, represented by her adoptive parents (OCI cardholders with Australian citizenship), challenging the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) refusal to issue an No Objection Certificate (NOC) (and related certification sought for overseas processing). CARA’s refusal was based on non-compliance with Regulation 68 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, which ordinarily requires sponsorship by the receiving country’s Central Authority/Authorised Foreign Adoption Agency.

Key Issue

  • Whether CARA can insist on strict compliance with Regulation 68 (including a sponsoring letter from the receiving country) even when such sponsorship is practically unavailable due to the receiving country’s policy, and if not, what alternative route applies.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that the case was squarely covered by the approach adopted by other High Courts in similar Australia-linked HAMA adoptions. It directed that CARA shall issue the necessary NOC, but only after a District Magistrate conducts the requisite inquiry and issues a verification certificate in the format prescribed under Schedule XXXV and XXXVI, as contemplated by Regulation 69 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022.

The Court also directed the authorities (including the District Magistrate and CARA) to expedite the process, emphasizing the welfare and future of the minor child.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

i. Mangesh Bhaskarrao Manwatkar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P (C) 16232/2025)

This Bombay High Court decision formed the central doctrinal basis for the Delhi High Court’s resolution. As reproduced in the Delhi High Court judgment, the Bombay High Court reasoned that:

  • Regulation 68 would ordinarily apply to HAMA adoptions initiated after 17.09.2021, but its steps (especially those requiring involvement/sponsorship of the receiving country authority) may become impossible to enforce in peculiar fact situations.
  • Where the adoption has already been legally concluded under HAMA, insisting on reversing events solely due to non-compliance with Regulation 68 would be unrealistic and contrary to the child’s welfare.
  • In such peculiar circumstances—especially where the receiving country classifies the adoption as an “expatriate adoption” and treats it outside its inter-country adoption process—courts may direct recourse to Regulations 69 and 70, i.e., a verification-driven pathway culminating in CARA issuing an NOC after District Magistrate scrutiny.

The Delhi High Court adopted this logic explicitly, recording that both sides agreed the present case was “squarely covered” by this dicta.

ii. Akshay Pitamber Sarvakar & Anr. v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors. (R/Special Civil Application No. 15710 of 2025)

The Gujarat High Court decision reinforced that CARA should not treat the Regulations as an insurmountable barrier where the adoption is under HAMA and the practical requirement is to provide Indian-side verification/certification for overseas immigration recognition.

Importantly, the Delhi High Court extracted from this case a communication describing a general procedure for situations where the adoptive parents cannot obtain an NOC from the Australian state/territory central authority due to a “non-participating” posture:

  1. Verification of the HAMA deed through the District Magistrate.
  2. Submission of verification documents to CARA.
  3. Issuance of a support letter by CARA.
  4. Use of the CARA support letter for Australian Department of Home Affairs processing.

The Delhi High Court treated this not as a one-off concession but as evidence that the overseas-side requirement focuses on CARA’s clearance after Indian verification, aligning with a Regulation 69 route where Regulation 68 sponsorship is unavailable.

iii. Jasleen Iqbal Sidhu (supra), Prema Gopal (supra), and R. K. and another (supra)

While the Delhi High Court did not reproduce these decisions directly, they appear in the Bombay High Court extract and were invoked to support a consistent remedial approach: a verification exercise by the competent Indian authority followed by CARA issuing the necessary NOC/support documentation to facilitate the child’s cross-border movement/settlement.

B. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds on a practical-construction model of the Adoption Regulations, 2022:

  • CARA rejected the application solely because Regulation 68 requires a sponsoring letter from the receiving country’s Central Authority/AFAA.
  • The petitioner demonstrated that, under Australian policy, the adoption was treated as an “expatriate adoption” and Australian authorities would not process it through their regulated inter-country adoption pathway—making Regulation 68 compliance functionally impossible.
  • In that context, the Court adopted the approach of channeling the case through Regulation 69—requiring an inquiry by the District Magistrate and issuance of a verification certificate in prescribed formats (Schedule XXXV and XXXVI).
  • After such verification, CARA must issue the NOC, and the entire process must be expedited considering the welfare of the minor child.

The Delhi High Court thus effectively recognizes a workable exception (or alternative compliance route) where the standard inter-country sponsorship architecture under Regulation 68 cannot operate due to the receiving country’s stance, yet the adoption is already legally complete under HAMA.

C. Impact

  • Operational precedent for CARA: The decision strengthens an emerging cross-High Court consensus that CARA should not deny NOCs solely due to absence of receiving-country sponsorship when that sponsorship is unattainable for HAMA “expatriate” adoptions; instead, CARA should rely on District Magistrate verification under Regulation 69.
  • Child-centric administration: By emphasizing expedition and the child’s welfare, the judgment discourages procedural dead-ends that can leave a child in limbo despite a concluded HAMA adoption deed and updated Indian documentation (e.g., birth certificate reflecting adoptive parents).
  • Guidance for OCI/NRI families: OCI/NRI adoptive parents facing foreign authority non-participation gain a judicially endorsed pathway: District Magistrate verification (Schedules XXXV/XXXVI) → CARA NOC, rather than an impossible search for a foreign “sponsoring letter.”
  • Future litigation trajectory: The decision may reduce repetitive writ petitions by clarifying that Regulation 69 can be used as a remedial channel when Regulation 68 sponsorship is blocked by the receiving country’s policy—particularly in Australia-linked matters described as “expatriate adoptions.”

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • CARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority): India’s central body overseeing adoption-related processes and documentation, especially where inter-country movement is involved.
  • NOC (No Objection Certificate): A clearance document indicating that Indian authorities have no objection to the child’s inter-country movement after adoption-related scrutiny; often required for immigration/entry processing abroad.
  • Adoption Regulations, 2022—Regulation 68 vs Regulation 69:
    • Regulation 68 generally contemplates an inter-country process backed by the receiving country’s central authority/AFAA sponsorship.
    • Regulation 69 focuses on verification of a HAMA adoption through the District Magistrate and prescribed certification formats.
  • “Expatriate adoption” (as per Australian authorities): A label used where a private overseas adoption (here, under HAMA) is treated as outside Australia’s regulated inter-country adoption program; this can prevent the usual “sponsorship letter” required by Regulation 68.
  • Schedules XXXV and XXXVI: Prescribed formats under the Adoption Regulations, 2022 used for District Magistrate verification/certification.

5. Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision establishes and reinforces a practical legal principle: where post-17.09.2021 HAMA adoptions by OCI/NRI parents cannot satisfy Regulation 68 due to the receiving country’s refusal to sponsor (notably in “expatriate adoption” scenarios), Indian authorities must not allow the process to collapse. Instead, the Court endorses the Regulation 69 route—District Magistrate inquiry and verification (Schedules XXXV/XXXVI) followed by CARA’s issuance of the NOC—with expedition driven by the welfare of the child.