Laxmi Kant Pandey vs Union Of India, AIR 1984

Court : Supreme Court of India

Brief : The Court entertaining an application for appointment of a foreigner as

guardian of a child should not require the representative, of the recognized placement
agency processing the application as a co-petitioner nor should the court insist on
appointing such representative as joint guardian of the child along with the foreigner.

Citation : Laxmi Kant Pandey vs Union Of India, AIR 1984

NAME OF THE JUDGES: P.N BHAGWATI [THEN CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA],RANGNATH

MISRA

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, Lakshmi Kant Pandey, who was also an attorney, filed a writ petition in
the Supreme Court of India, which was later treated as a PIL, alleging neglect and malpractice
on the part of private adoption agencies and social organizations facilitating the adoption of
Indian children to parents of different countries . He pointed out the hazardous journeys
these children had to go through to reach foreign countries, along with instances of neglect
they experience from their adoptive parents. He also pointed out the sex traffic racket going
on resulting into buying and selling of minor children. In its judgment, the SC pointed out
the absence of legal regulation of inter-country adoptions in India, that could cause harm to
Indian children who maybe exposed to the abuses of profiteering or trafficking. In order to
protect the welfare of children, the Court, in consultation with several social or child welfare
institutions, laid out a comprehensive framework of normative and procedural safeguards for
regulating inter-country adoption. The SC formulated the normative and procedural
safeguards to be followed in giving an Indian child in adoption to foreign parents.

CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER [LAXMI KANT PANDEY] Petitioner argued that there

have been instances of illegal sales of babies based on investigation by a reputed foreign
magazine called “THE MAIL” and stated that it is not possible to devise a fool-proof formula
which will in all cases prevent illegal sales of babies, but a procedure can and must be
formulated which will definitely reduce the possibility of such illegal sales. Which means, a
stricter and procedural law must be formulated for inter-country adoptions.

JUDGEMENT

Since we do not have a uniform adoption law, Supreme Court of India in its
judgment gave directives and guidelines in processing adoptions to foreign parents under
the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. Supreme Court formulated the normative and procedural
safeguards to be followed in giving an Indian child in adoption to foreign parents. Supreme
Court held that any adoption in violation of or non-compliance with the directives set forth
in this judgment may lead the adoption to be declared invalid and expose the person
concerned to strict action including prosecution. Supreme court laid rules and norms None
of the recognized placement agencies should make and process an application for
appointment of a foreigner as guardian/parent of a child, unless the child is in the custody of
the recognized placement agency for a period of at least one month before making of the
application. The Court entertaining an application for appointment of a foreigner as guardian
of a child should not require the representative, of the recognized placement agency
processing the application as a co-petitioner nor should the court insist on appointing such
representative as joint guardian of the child along with the foreigner. Where a child is
relinquished by its biological parents or by an unwed mother under a “Deed of
Relinquishment” executed by the biological parents or the unwed mother, it should not be
necessary to go through the Juvenile Court or to the Social Welfare Department or to the
Collector, to obtain a release order from them declaring the child free for adoption. It would
be enough to produce the “Deed of Relinquishment” before the court which considered the
application for appointment of a foreigner as guardian of the child. The recognized
placement agency processing the application of a foreigner for being appointed guardian
of a child with a view to its eventual adoption, should be entitled to recover from the
foreigner, cost incurred in preparing and filing the application and prosecuting it in court
including legal expenses, administrative expenses, preparation of child study report,
preparation of medical and I.Q.Reports, passport and visa expenses and conveyance
expenses and other such expenses may be fixed by the court, not exceeding Rs.6000. This
rule is made, so that adoption agencies do not sell Indian children for money, in foreign
markets