The legality of adoptions facilitated by the Kerala State Council for Child Welfare, Thiruvananthapuram, has come under cloud, with a court ruling that the agency lacked the mandatory recognition for facilitating adoptions.
It was while considering the recent adoption procedures initiated by the Council in the case of four abandoned children that the court issued the order.
Incidentally, the council was mired in controversy over the alleged illegal adoption of the baby of Anupama S. Chandran from Thiruvananthapuram.
In its order issued last week, the court noted that the adoption facilitation agencies required the mandatory recognition under Section 65 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 and Rule 23 (2) of the Adoption Regulations, 2017. However, all that the council had was a certificate of registration under Section 41 (1) of the Act, 2015, the court noted.
K. Biju Menon, judge, Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, noted that he was “at a loss to understand as to what prevents the Council from applying and obtaining a certificate of recognition from the State.”
Rejecting the contention of the Council that its registration as a child care institution and a specialised adoption agency was sufficient and no further certification of recognition under the Regulation was necessary, the court noted that the registration under the Act was different from the recognition under the Regulations. While the recognition is provided after conducting detailed inquiry into the internal structure and other facilities of the agency, no such inspection and through verification of records are mandated for the registration, the court noted.
The court, which gave one month time for the council to apply and obtain recognition, also warned the Council that obtaining the certificate of registration was “a mandatory requirement and the Council cannot bypass” the rules.
The State government is yet to make public an inquiry report on allegations of irregularities in the adoption procedures followed by the Council in the Anupama case. Anupama had got her child back from a couple with whom he was given in foster care just before the family court completing the adoption procedures.
