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.
MY OPINION
In my opinion, this petition was due a long time ago, and its incredible of Mr. Laxmi Kant Pandey to file a writ petition on inter-country adoption. Human trafficking is no foreign concept to us, and we all are aware that this malice act is practiced all over the world. And inter-country adoption, without any laws makes it easy for people with greed and malice intentions all the more easy. And after the laws being stricken for inter-country adoption, less cases of Indian children being abandoned on a foreign land by their adoptive parents are reported and we can certainly see a dip inhuman trafficking on Indian children in foreign, which shows that the supreme court once again has proved itself and decided the case with brilliancy.
