REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2017-2020 OF 2019 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.1476-1479 of 2019)

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ETC.    ...APPELLANTS  

Vs.

ANKUR GUPTA & ORS.     ...RESPONDENTS  

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Leave granted.   

2. The  contesting  respondent  Nos.  1  and  2  having

appeared through caveat, we have heard counsel for

the parties and proceed to decide the matter finally.

3. Union of India and Central Adoption and Resources

Agency, Ministry of Women & Child Development is in

appeal questioning the Division Bench judgment dated

04.09.2018 in Writ Appeal No. 2259 of 2018 and Writ

Appeal No.2675 of 2018.  Two other appeals have been

filed by two other appellants questioning a common

1

order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the High Court in

C.C.C. No. 1690 of 2018 and C.C.C. No. 1691 of 2018.

4. We first take the Civil Appeal filed against the

Division  Bench  judgment  in  Writ  Appeal  No.2259  of

2018  and  Writ  Appeal  No.2675  of  2018.   The  brief

facts giving rise to the appeal as has been noted by

the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  are  to  the

following effect:-

4.1 That after completing his studies from the

Indian  Institute  of  Technology  and  India

Institute  of  Management,  Ahmedabad,  in  the

year 2000, Mr. Ankur Gupta, the respondent

No.1 migrated to United State of America (USA

for short). In 2004, Ms. Geetika Agarwal, the

respondent No.2 went to USA for her Ph.D.

During their stay in USA in June, 2006, the

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 got married. They

stayed in USA for a decade. They returned to

India  in  2016.  While  staying  in  USA,  the

respondent No.2 became an American Citizen;

the  respondent  No.1  applied  for  American

citizenship.  However,  till  2016,  when  the

2

couple returned to India, the respondent No.1

was  not  given  the  American  Citizenship.

Moreover, even after ten years of marriage,

the couple was not blessed with any children.

Therefore, upon their return to India, they

eventually planned to adopt an Indian child.

4.2 The  respondent  Nos.1  and  2  submitted  an

Application  on  19.07.2016  through  Central

Adoption  Resource  Information  and  Guidance

System (CARINGS) to adopt a child as Indian

Prospective  Adoptive  Parents.  Just  before

submitting  the  application  for  adoption

respondent No.2 had acquired the citizenship

of USA on 19.05.2016 which had been declared

as  such  in  application  submitted  on

19.07.2016.

4.3 According  to  the  Guideline,  2015,  a  Home

Study  Report  has  to  be  prepared  by  a

Specialized  Adoption  Agency  in  order  to

coordinate  the  efforts  of  a  ‘Prospective

adoptive  parents’  to  adopt  a  child.  On

01.08.2016,  Shishu  Mandir  Agency,  a

3

registered Specialized Adoption Agency, filed

its  Home  Study  Report.  Thereafter,  the

respondents were in queue awaiting referral

of  a  child  for  adoption.  On  05.12.2016,

during  the  time  they  were  waiting  for

referral  of  a  child  for  adoption,  the

respondent  No.1  was  granted  the  U.S.

Citizenship on 05.12.2016.  

4.4 According to the respondents, on the basis of

the advice received by them, they informed

CARA, the appellant No.2 about the change in

citizenship  status  of  respondent  No.1.

Moreover,  on  05.11.2017,  the  couple

registered themselves as Overseas Citizens of

India  (OCI)  residing  in  India.  The  said

registration  was  made  under  the  Adoption

Regulations,  2017  (Regulations,  2017,  for

short), which was notified on 4th January 2017

in supersession of the Guidelines Governing

Adoption of Children, 2015.  

4

4.5 Since  the  respondents  had  informed  the

Specialised Adoption Agency about the change

in their citizenship status, the Specialized

Agency informed the appellant No.2, through

e-mail dated 05.12.2017, about the change of

citizenship  status  of  the  respondents.  The

Specialised Adoption Agency referred to the

respondents’  second  registration,  namely,

CUSA201771205. On behalf of the respondents,

the Specialised Adoption Agency requested the

appellants  that  the  respondent’s  seniority

for adoption of a child should be continued

on the basis of the first registration.  

4.6 By  e-mail  dated  06.12.2017,  the  appellant

No.2 informed the Specialised Adoption Agency

that the request for continuing the seniority

of the couple would be considered with the

approval of the competent authority. However,

the eligibility of the couple for adoption

would be in the category of “OCI living in

India”.

5

4.7 On  01.01.2018,  Baby  Shomya  (born  on

30.09.2017)  was  referred  by  the  respondent

No.3 for adoption by the respondent Nos. 1 &

2. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 accepted the

referral on 02.01.2018. The respondent Nos. 1

& 2 visited Baby Shomya, who was with the

respondent  No.3  at  Patna.  Therefore,  on

04.01.2018, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 wrote to

the CEO of the appellant No.2 requesting for

continual of the reference of Baby Shomya for

adoption.  The  respondent  Nos.1  &  2,  who

apprehended that the referral of Baby Shomya

for  adoption  would  expire  on  18.01.2018,

repeatedly corresponded with the appellants

as a follow-up for completing the adoption of

Baby Shomya. Again, in the month of March

2018, the respondent nos. 1 & 2 visited Baby

Shomya. During this visit, they were informed

that  in  a  High-Level  Committee  Meeting  on

27.02.2018, their request for permission to

continue  the  first  application  dated

19.07.2016,  as  Indians  living  in  India

Prospective Adoptive Parents, was declared as

6

invalid, because the respondent No.1 had also

been given US citizenship. They were further

informed  that  they  will,  instead,  have  to

wait  for  a  referral  of  another  child  as

‘Overseas Citizen of India’.

4.8 Therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed

writ petition, namely, W.P. Nos. 12427-428 of

2018, impugning the aforesaid decision, which

was communicated to them over an e-mail dated

15.03.2018. The Writ Court allowed the writ

petitions by order dated 19.06.2018. The writ

Court  quashed  the  aforesaid  decision

communicated  vide  the  e-mail  dated

15.03.2018. Further, the High Court directed

the appellants to consider and examine the

request of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 on the

basis  of  their  first  application  dated

19.07.2016 expeditiously, but within 15 days

from the date of receipt of this order.    

4.9 The learned Single Judge vide its judgment

and order dated 19.06.2018 allowed the writ

petitions by passing following order:-

7

“ORDER (1) Writ  petitions  are  hereby

allowed.

(2) Communication  dated  15.03.2018- Annexure-Z is hereby quashed.

(3) Writ  of  mandamus  is  issued  to respondents  to  consider  and examine the application submitted by  petitioners  on  the  strength and  basis  of  the  application dated  19.07.2016  –  Annexure- A/Annexure-R-2  expeditiously,  at any rate, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, by keeping in mind the observations made herein above. “

4.10 Union of India and Central Adoption Resources

Agency, Ministry of Women & Child Development

filed Writ Appeal No. 2259 of 2018 and Writ

Appeal No. 2675 of 2018 against the judgment.

Two Contempt Applications being C.C.C. Nos.

1690-1691  of  2018  were  also  filed  by

respondent  Nos.  1  and  2,  which  were  also

considered and decided by Division Bench of

High  Court  vide  its  judgment  dated

04.09.2018.  The Division Bench of the High

Court  vide  its  judgment  dated  04.09.2018

dismissed  the  writ  appeals.   The  Division

Bench  affirmed  the  order  of  the  learned

8

Single  Judge.   While  dismissing  the  writ

appeals,  the  contempt  petitions  were  also

closed.  It is useful to extract paragraph

Nos.  30  and  31  of  the  judgment,  which  is

relevant for the present case:- “30.   For  the  aforesaid  reasons, this  Court  is  of  the  considered opinion  that  the  Writ  Court  has rightly  concluded  that  the appellants  were  not  justified  in denying the benefit of referral of the  child,  Baby  Shomya,  for adoption  by  the  respondent  Nos.1 and 2, and that no grounds are made out  for  interference  with  the exercise  of  extraordinary jurisdiction  by  the  Writ  Court under  Article  226  of  the Constitution  of  India  in  the peculiar  facts  and  circumstances that  congeal  into  exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the Writ appeal  is  rejected  and consequentially,  the  pending applications are also disposed of. The  appellants  are  directed  to implement  the  directions  of  the Writ Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.  

31. In  view  of  the  dismissal  of the  writ  appeal,  and  the  further direction  to  the  appellants  to implement  the  directions  of  the Writ  Court  within  the  further period  as  stated  above,  the contempt proceeding is closed.”

9

4.11 The appellants aggrieved by the said judgment

have filed these appeals.

5. Shri Aman Lekhi, learned ASG appearing for the

appellants  submits  that  High  Court,  both  learned

Single  Judge  and  Division  Bench  erred  in  not

correctly construing the provisions of Sections 57,

58  and  59  of  the  Juvenile  Justice  (Care  and

Protection  of  Children)  Act,  2015  as  well  as  the

Adoption Regulations, 2017.  It is submitted that the

respondent No.1 after submitting first application on

19.07.2016 for in country adoption having acquired US

citizenship on 06.12.2016 went outside the zone of in

country adoption.  It is submitted that the second

application  was  submitted  by  the  respondents  on

05.11.2017  for  inter  country  adoption  but  in  that

second application, the respondents have given their

different  identity  and  mobile  numbers.   It  is

submitted that the respondent having gone out of zone

of  consideration  for  in  country  adoption,  their

application cannot be directed to be considered on

the basis of seniority for in country adoption.  It

is submitted that there are more than 22,000 parents

waiting,  according  to  seniority,  for  in  country

10

adoption, respondents cannot stroll march over them.

It is submitted that offer to adopt Shomya, which was

sent  on  01.01.2018  was  on  the  basis  of  first

application  of  the  respondents  and  after  the

respondents informed in writing on 04.01.2018 about

their  second  registration  dated  05.11.2017,  the

communication  was  sent  to  the  respondents  that

decision regarding their seniority will be taken by

the competent authority.  The communication was sent

on 15.03.2018 to the respondents that they cannot be

given the benefit of their seniority on the basis of

their first application and they have to wait for

receiving an offer as overseas citizen of India.  It

is submitted that there were no special circumstances

on the basis of which any exception can be made in

favour of the respondents as has been directed by the

High Court.  

6. Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondents

submits that the Act, 2015 and the Regulations, 2017

do not provide for any mechanism when Indian parents,

who  have  already  got  themselves  registered  for

adoption  acquires  the  foreign  citizenship.   It  is

submitted  that  as  per  Regulation  41  of  the

11

Regulations,  2017,  a  common  seniority  list  is

contemplated,  which  means  that  respondents  shall

retain their seniority position on the basis of first

application.   Thus,  offer  to  adopt  Shomya  to  the

respondents cannot be faulted.  It is submitted that

respondent  Nos.1  and  2  being  fully  competent  for

applying for adoption, who are still qualified and

economically  stable  and  eager  to  adopt  the  child

cannot  be  denied  their  right  merely  because  the

respondent No.1 was conferred the US citizenship on

06.12.2016,  i.e.,  much  after  submission  of  their

first application as Indian parent.   

7. It is submitted that even though respondent Nos.1

and 2 have been conferred US citizenship, both are

residing  in  Bangalore,  India  and  in  both  the

applications,  their  residence  is  shown  as  India,

hence  in  peculiar  circumstances,  they  have  rightly

been  offered  child  Shomya  for  adoption.   It  is

submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 bonafide

has not concealed any information and has bonafide

submitted their application on 05.11.2017 as Overseas

Citizen of India and the fact that immediately when

they  received  offer  for  adoption  of  Shomya  on

12

02.01.2018, on 04.01.2018, they sent an e-mail giving

details  of  both  the  applications.  The  respondents

have been bonafide pursuing their claim for adoption,

they having not been blessed with a child even though

after happy marital life of more than ten years.  It

is submitted that the High Court has rightly held

that present case can be considered as an exceptional

case and without making it a precedent, the adoption

in favour of the respondents be allowed to maintain.  

8. We have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

9. The 2015 Act, Chapter VIII deals with adoption.

Section  56  sub-section  (1)  provides  that  adoption

shall be resorted to for ensuring right to family for

the  orphan,  abandoned  and  surrendered  children,  as

per  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  the  rules  made

thereunder and the adoption regulations framed by the

authority.   Section  57  deals  with  eligibility  of

prospective adoptive parents, which is as follows:- 57. Eligibility  of  prospective  adoptive parents.--(1)  The  prospective  adoptive parents  shall  be  physically  fit, financially  sound,  mentally  alert  and highly  motivated  to  adopt  a  child  for providing a good upbringing to him.  

13

(2) In case of a couple, the consent of both the spouses for the adoption shall be required.  

(3) A single or divorced person can also adopt,  subject  to  fulfilment  of  the criteria  and  in  accordance  with  the provisions  of  adoption  regulations  framed by  the  Authority.   

(4) A single male is not eligible to adopt a girl child.  

(5)  Any  other  criteria  that  may  be specified  in  the  adoption  regulations framed by the Authority

10. Section 58 deals with procedure for adoption by

Indian prospective adoptive parents living in India,

which is to the following effect:- 58.  Procedure  for  adoption  by  Indian prospective  adoptive  parents  living  in India.--(1)  Indian  prospective  adoptive parents  living  in  India,  irrespective  of their religion, if interested to adopt an orphan or abandoned or surrendered child, may  apply  for  the  same  to  a  Specialised Adoption Agency, in the manner as provided in the adoption regulations framed by the Authority.  

(2) The Specialised Adoption Agency shall prepare  the  home  study  report  of  the prospective  adoptive  parents  and  upon finding them eligible, will refer a child declared legally free for adoption to them along  with  the  child  study  report  and medical report of the child, in the manner as  provided  in  the  adoption  regulations framed by the Authority.

14

(3) On the receipt of the acceptance of the child from the prospective adoptive parents along  with  the  child  study  report  and medical report of the child signed by such parents,  the  Specialised  Adoption  Agency shall give the child in pre-adoption foster care and file an application in the court for  obtaining  the  adoption  order,  in  the manner  as  provided  in  the  adoption regulations framed by the Authority.  

(4) On the receipt of a certified copy of the court order, the Specialised Adoption Agency shall send immediately the same to the prospective adoptive parents.

(5)  The  progress  and  well-being  of  the child  in  the  adoptive  family  shall  be followed up and ascertained in the manner as  provided  in  the  adoption  regulations framed by the Authority.

11. The next provision, which needs to be noticed is

Section 59, which provides for procedure for inter-

country  adoption  of  an  orphan  or  abandoned  or

surrendered child, which is as follows:-    59.  Procedure for inter-country adoption of  an  orphan  or  abandoned  or  surrendered child.--(1)  If  an  orphan  or  abandoned  or surrendered child could not be placed with an  Indian  or  non-resident  Indian prospective  adoptive  parent  despite  the joint  effort  of  the  Specialised  Adoption Agency and State Agency within sixty days from the date the child has been declared legally free for adoption, such child shall be free for inter-country adoption:  

Provided that children with physical and mental  disability,  siblings  and  children above  five  years  of  age  may  be  given

15

preference  over  other  children  for  such inter-country adoption, in accordance with the adoption regulations, as may be framed by the Authority.  

(2)  An  eligible  non-resident  Indian  or overseas  citizen  of  India  or  persons  of Indian  origin  shall  be  given  priority  in inter-country adoption of Indian children.  

(3)  A  non-resident  Indian  or  overseas citizen  of  India,  or  person  of  Indian origin or a foreigner, who are prospective adoptive  parents  living  abroad, irrespective  of  their  religion,  if interested to adopt an orphan or abandoned or surrendered child from India, may apply for  the  same  to  an  authorised  foreign adoption agency, or Central Authority or a concerned  Government  department  in  their country of habitual residence, as the case may be, in the manner as provided in the adoption  regulations  framed  by  the Authority.  

(4) The authorised foreign adoption agency, or  Central  Authority,  or  a  concerned Government department, as the case may be, shall prepare the home study report of such prospective  adoptive  parents  and  upon finding them eligible, will sponsor their application to Authority for adoption of a child from India, in the manner as provided in the adoption regulations framed by the Authority.  

(5) On the receipt of the application of such  prospective  adoptive  parents,  the Authority shall examine and if it finds the applicants  suitable,  then,  it  will  refer the application to one of the Specialised Adoption  Agencies,  where  children  legally free for adoption are available.  

16

(6)  The  Specialised  Adoption  Agency  will match  a  child  with  such  prospective adoptive parents and send the child study report and medical report of the child to such parents, who in turn may accept the child  and  return  the  child  study  and medical report duly signed by them to the said agency.  

(7)  On  receipt  of  the  acceptance  of  the child  from  the  prospective  adoptive parents,  the  Specialised  Adoption  Agency shall file an application in the court for obtaining the adoption order, in the manner as  provided  in  the  adoption  regulations framed by the Authority.  

(8) On the receipt of a certified copy of the court order, the specialised adoption agency shall send immediately the same to Authority,  State  Agency  and  to  the prospective adoptive parents, and obtain a passport for the child.

(9) The Authority shall intimate about the adoption to the immigration authorities of India  and  the  receiving  country  of  the child.

(10) The prospective adoptive parents shall receive  the  child  in  person  from  the specialised adoption agency as soon as the passport and visa are issued to the child.  

(11)  The  authorised  foreign  adoption agency,  or  Central  Authority,  or  the concerned  Government  department,  as  the case may be, shall ensure the submission of progress  reports  about  the  child  in  the adoptive family and will be responsible for making alternative arrangement in the case of  any  disruption,  in  consultation  with Authority  and  concerned  Indian  diplomatic mission, in the manner as provided in the

17

adoption  regulations  framed  by  the Authority.  

(12)  A  foreigner  or  a  person  of  Indian origin or an overseas citizen of India, who has  habitual  residence  in  India,  if interested to adopt a child from India, may apply to Authority for the same along with a  no  objection  certificate  from  the diplomatic mission of his country in India, for further necessary actions as provided in the adoption regulations framed by the Authority

12. The  respondent  Nos.1  and  2  submitted  their

application as prospective adoptive parents living in

India.   Although,  on  the  date  of  submission  of

application,  respondent  No.2  was  already  a  US

citizen,  the  respondent  No.1  being  Indian  citizen,

the  application  was  fully  maintainable  as  per  the

provisions of Regulations and as per the guidelines

applicable at the relevant time as Indian prospective

adoptive  parents.  Even  Regulation  21(1)  of

Regulations,  2017  provides  that  if  one  of  the

prospective adoptive parents is foreigner and other

is an Indian, such case shall be treated at par with

Indians living in India. After the respondent No.1

acquired  the  US  citizenship  on  06.12.2016  and  OCI

card  was  issued  to  respondent  No.1  on  27.04.2017,

18

second application was submitted on 05.11.2017 by the

respondents  for  inter-country  adoption  both  having

become US citizens.  In view of the fact that both

had become US citizens by 06.12.2016, they were not

eligible for adoption as Indian prospective adoptive

parents  living  in  India.   Mere  fact  that  Act  or

Regulations  does  not  provide  for  any  mechanism  to

upload any further information in first registration

cannot alter the legal position and consequences of

acquiring the foreign citizenship by an Indian.  The

consequences  of  obtaining  US  citizenship  of

respondent  Nos.1  and  2  shall  take  its  effect

immediately.                    13. The  submission  of  learned  counsel  for  the

respondents  that  Regulation  41  deals  with  common

seniority list also need to be noted.  Regulation 41

of the Regulations, 2017 is as follows:- 41. Seniority of the prospective adoptive parents.- (1)  The  prospective  adoptive parents shall be referred children on the basis  of  a  single  seniority  list,  which shall  be  maintained  from  the  date  of registration  and  other  criteria  as stipulated under these regulations.  

(2) The seniority of resident Indians shall be based on the date of online registration and submission of the documents, except for

19

Home  Study  Report,  in  Child  Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System.  

(3) The seniority of Non Resident Indian or Overseas  Citizen  of  India  or  foreign prospective adoptive parents shall be based on  the  date  of  online  registration  and submission  of  the  requisite  documents alongwith  Home  Study  Report  in  Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System.  

(4) Prospective adoptive parents shall be allowed to change the State preference once within  sixty  days  from  the  date  of registration  and  in  case  they  change  the State preference after sixty days from the date of registration, they shall be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the changed State.  

(5)  Seniority  of  prospective  adoptive parents registered as single, but married later  shall  be  counted  from  the  date  of registration  as  single  after  receipt  of fresh Home Study Report.  

(6) Prospective adoptive parents registered for normal child, shall be able to adopt a special need child or hard to place child with the same registration.

14. It is also submitted that prior to Regulations,

2017, there were two separate seniority lists, which

were maintained under the Guidelines, 2015, which has

been now made a single seniority list.  Even if there

is  a  single  seniority  list,  now  contemplated  by

Regulation 41, a placement in the seniority list with 20

regard to resident Indian and non-resident Indian or

overseas  citizen  of  India  are  based  on  different

yardsticks  as  provided  in  Regulations  41(2)  and

41(3).  Even if the common seniority list has to be

utilised for the purpose of in country adoption and

inter-country  adoption  as  per  the  respective

categories,  the  difference  between  in  country

adoption  and  inter-country  adoption  cannot  be  lost

sight  or  given  a  go  bye  by  the  mere  fact  that  a

common seniority list is maintained.  It is true that

Regulation  41  or  any  other  Regulation  does  not

contemplate a situation when a resident Indian after

acquiring  the  foreign  citizenship  submits  a  fresh

registration, what is the consequence and value of

its first registration.  Even though regulations are

silent and do not provide for any mechanism or any

answer  to  such  fact  situation,  the  natural

consequences of acquiring foreign citizenship shall

follow.  We, thus, find force in the submission of

the learned ASG that the right of respondent Nos. 1

and 2 for adoption as resident Indian is lost after

respondent No.1 having acquired the US citizenship on

06.12.2016.  Offer of the child to the respondent

21

Nos. 1 and 2 was based on their first application

dated 19.07.2016, in which if the clause of foreign

citizenship is ignored, was in accordance with the

Act and the Rules.  Further, whether the factum of

respondent  No.1  acquiring  US  citizenship  on

06.12.2016  should  be  ignored  for  the  purposes  of

adoption or not is the question, which is required to

be addressed and answered in these appeals.   

15. Section  58  and  59  provides  for  two  different

mechanisms for adoption.  As per Section 59(1), if an

orphan or abandoned or surrendered child could not be

placed  with  an  Indian  or  non-resident  Indian

prospective adoptive parents despite the joint effort

of the Specialised Adoption Agency and State Agency

within sixty days from the date the child has been

declared legally free for adoption, such child shall

be free for inter-country adoption.  Thus, sixty days

period has to be elapsed from the date when the child

has been declared legally free for adoption.  In the

present case, child was declared free for adoption on

14.12.2017 by Child Welfare Committee, Patna, Bihar.

Before expiry of sixty days, child could not have

been  offered  for  adoption  to  parents,  who  are

22

eligible  for  adoption  under  Section  59.   We  are,

however, not oblivious to the fact that respondent

Nos.1  and  2  had  been  bonafide  pursuing  their

applications  for  adoption,  initially  as  resident

Indians and thereafter even as overseas citizens of

India.  As per Section 57, both the respondent Nos.1

and 2 are fully eligible and competent to adopt the

child.  It was under the circumstances as noticed

above that the child Shomya was offered to respondent

Nos.1  and  2,  who  rightly  communicated  their

acceptance and communicated with the child and are

willing to take child in adoption and to take all

care and provide good education to her.  We have no

doubt in the bonafide or the competence of respondent

Nos.1 and 2 in their effort to take the child in

adoption,  but  the  statutory  procedure  and  the

statutory regime, which is prevalent as on date and

is equally applicable to all aspirants, i.e., Indian

prospective adoptive parents and prospective adoptive

parents  for  inter-country  adoption,  cannot  be  lost

sight.   However,  by  virtue  of  Section  59(2),  the

respondent  Nos.1  and  2  can  at  best  may  be  given

priority  in  inter-country  adoption,  they  being

23

eligible overseas citizens of India and further due

to consequences of events and facts as noticed above.

16. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of

the view that ends of justice be served in disposing

the Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1476-

1477 of 2019 in following manner:

(i) The  decision  dated  27.02.2018  as

communicated to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2

by e-mail dated 15.03.2018 is upheld.  

(ii) Judgments of learned Single Judge as well

as  of  Division  Bench  in  so  far  as  it

directs  to  consider  and  examine  the

application of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on

the  basis  of  first  registration  dated

19.07.2016 are set aside.

(iii) The competent authority shall again notify

the child Shomya legally free for adoption,

which notification shall be issued within

one week from today.  

(iv) That in event, within sixty days from the

date  the  child(Shomya)  is  declared  as

legally free for adoption is not taken by

or adopted by Indian prospective adoptive

24

parents, the child Shomya shall be given in

adoption to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in

inter-country adoption.  All consequential

steps thereafter shall be completed.   

17. Now, coming to Civil Appeals arising out of SLP

(C)  Nos.  1478-1479,  these  appeals  have  been  filed

against the order dated 04.09.2018 passed in C.C.C.

Nos.  1690-1691  of  2018,  the  contempt  proceedings

having  been  closed  by  the  Division  Bench  by  its

impugned judgment dated 04.09.2018, nothing more is

required to be said in that regard.  We, however,

observe that filing of the contempt applications in

the  fact  situation  of  the  present  case  was  ill-

advised.  Both the contempt applications deserve to

be rejected.  The appeals are allowed and contempt

applications  stand  rejected.   Parties  shall  bear

their own costs.      

......................J.                              ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

......................J.                              ( K.M. JOSEPH )

New Delhi,  February 25, 2019.          

25