Calcutta High Court restores adoption priority for elderly couple after procedural lapse

The Calcutta High Court has directed adoption authorities to give priority to a couple in their 50s who lost their chance to adopt a child due to a procedural delay that was not their fault. The court’s July 13 order restores the couple’s seniority in the adoption queue, offering them a renewed opportunity to become parents.

Justice Krishna Rao noted that the combined age of the petitioners, as on January 12, 2026, was 108 years, which is below the maximum permissible limit of 110 years under adoption rules. The court observed that the couple’s delay in giving consent was not due to refusal but because of confusion over the child’s medical reports. Therefore, their Home Study Report (HSR) remains valid and their seniority is protected.

The case involves a couple who registered on the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) portal on January 29, 2020. On December 22, 2025, they received a referral for a 5-year-old girl from a Specialised Adoption Agency (SAA). The medical examination report indicated that the child did not vocalise with the caregiver. Further medical records from the Department of ENT, Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, dated August 29, 2025, stated that the child is “unable to speak since birth” and recommended speech therapy. The audio vestibular clinic also noted a speech problem, with the child relying on gestures to express herself.

Advocate Deepan Kumar Sarkar, representing the couple, argued that the child falls under the category of special needs due to significant speech impairment. The couple informed CARA and the State Adoption Resource Authority (SARA) about the medical findings and sought clarification along with a chief medical officer’s report under the Adoption Regulations, 2022. However, the authorities did not respond promptly, and the 48-hour window to reserve the child expired on December 25, 2025.

Sarkar contended that due to the confusion over the child’s medical report, the couple could not give consent within the deadline, and the authorities closed the grievance without allowing them to consent. He submitted that this would push the couple to the next referral cycle, potentially making them ineligible to adopt under the rules due to age limits.

Advocate Siddartha Lahiri, appearing for the authorities, submitted that the couple failed to consent within 48 hours and the child was offered to the next eligible prospective adoptive parents. He added that if the couple still wished to adopt, they could file a fresh application, and informed the court that the child had already been given to another couple.

The court, however, found merit in the petitioners' argument and directed that the couple be allowed to immediately revalidate their HSR. Once revalidated, the authorities are to give them first preference for an available child with the SAA, treating them as serial number 1 in seniority, provided the child is fit for adoption. The adoption process will proceed if the couple gives their consent within 48 hours of the referral.

The order underscores the importance of fair procedures in adoption cases, especially for couples nearing the age limit. It also highlights the need for authorities to handle medical disclosures and queries promptly to avoid unintentional disqualification of prospective parents.