Abstract
The right of a child to family and care lies at the heart of any civilized society. Adoption, as a social and legal institution, ensures that children deprived of parental care are placed in safe, nurturing environments conducive to their holistic development. India’s adoption regime has evolved significantly, transitioning from personal law-based adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, to a secular and rights-oriented framework under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The establishment of the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) as the nodal regulatory body marked a milestone in standardizing adoption procedures and aligning domestic practices with international conventions, notably the Hague Convention of 1993.
Despite this progress, persistent challenges relating to efficiency and transparency continue to hinder the full realization of a child-centric adoption system. State Adoption Resource Agencies (SARAs) and Specialized Adoption Agencies (SAAs), which operate under CARA’s supervision, face systemic inefficiencies, bureaucratic delays, lack of accountability, and technological shortcomings. This paper seeks to critically examine the operational efficiency and transparency of CARA and SARAs, their legal and institutional frameworks, and the extent to which they fulfil their mandate. The study draws on statutory provisions, policy reports, judicial precedents, and comparative perspectives to evaluate existing mechanisms and propose measures for reform.
Introduction
Adoption in India represents a vital intersection of family law, child rights, and administrative justice. It serves not merely as a legal act of transferring parental responsibilities but as a profound social commitment towards ensuring that every child enjoys the right to a family, identity, and protection. Historically, adoption practices in India were guided by religious doctrines, with the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, serving as the earliest codified statute governing the institution of adoption. However, this law was limited to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, leaving large sections of society outside its scope.
To create a uniform and secular system, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000—and later its 2015 version—introduced a comprehensive legal framework applicable to all citizens irrespective of religion. The 2015 Act, for the first time, granted statutory status to the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), designating it as the apex body to monitor and regulate adoptions across India. The Act also envisaged the establishment of State Adoption Resource Agencies (SARAs) to coordinate at the state level, ensuring implementation and supervision of adoption procedures through recognized Specialized Adoption Agencies (SAAs).
While these reforms signify progressive intent, numerous operational and procedural hurdles persist. Prospective adoptive parents continue to face prolonged waiting periods, agencies struggle with under-staffing and resource shortages, and transparency mechanisms remain inadequate. Therefore, the effectiveness of CARA and SARAs must be evaluated not only in terms of their legal structure but also their practical performance in delivering timely, transparent, and equitable adoption services.
Literature Review
Existing literature on India’s adoption system reflects a diverse body of scholarship addressing legal, administrative, and ethical dimensions. Early works by scholars such as Flavia Agnes and Bina Agarwal emphasized the religious and patriarchal foundations of adoption law in India, observing that it primarily served lineage continuation rather than child welfare. Later studies shifted focus to the state’s role in regulating adoption as a child protection measure.
Policy documents released by the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) and CARA’s annual reports highlight progressive improvements, particularly through the introduction of the Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System (CARINGS), a digital platform designed to promote transparency and uniformity. However, empirical studies—such as those by UNICEF and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR)—reveal persisting inefficiencies, including inter-departmental coordination failures and inequitable distribution of resources among states.
Judicial commentary, particularly from the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984) and Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India (2014), has further shaped the normative framework of adoption, emphasizing the best interests of the child and the need for transparent administrative regulation. Despite these contributions, there remains limited analytical research evaluating the dual aspects of efficiency and transparency in the functioning of CARA and SARAs. This paper attempts to bridge that gap through a comprehensive doctrinal and policy-based examination.
Legal Framework of Adoption in India
The legal foundation for adoption in India is primarily embedded within the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Adoption Regulations, 2022, which are framed by CARA under the powers conferred by Section 68 of the Act. Section 56 recognizes adoption as a legal process available to all persons irrespective of religion, thereby advancing secularism in personal law. Section 57 outlines eligibility conditions for prospective adoptive parents, ensuring that adoption serves the child’s welfare and not the desires of the adopter.
CARA functions under the Ministry of Women and Child Development, exercising authority over all adoptions in India, including inter-country adoptions. The Adoption Regulations, 2022, standardize procedural steps such as:
- Registration of prospective adoptive parents
- Preparation of home study reports
- Referral and matching processes
- Post-adoption follow-ups
They also fix timelines to avoid undue delays and provide mechanisms for appeals and grievance redressal.
The Indian adoption system is also influenced by international obligations, particularly the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption (1993), to which India is a signatory. The Convention mandates safeguards to prevent child trafficking and ensures that inter-country adoption is treated as a measure of last resort, prioritizing domestic placement. The combined effect of these legal instruments establishes a comprehensive framework, theoretically capable of ensuring both efficiency and transparency.
Institutional Framework: CARA and SARAs
CARA serves as the central authority under the Juvenile Justice Act, tasked with promoting, regulating, and monitoring adoption processes across India. Its functions include establishing uniform procedures, accrediting adoption agencies, maintaining centralized records through the CARINGS portal, and overseeing compliance with both domestic and international standards. CARA also acts as the central authority under the Hague Convention, coordinating with foreign adoption authorities in inter-country cases.
State Adoption Resource Agencies (SARAs), functioning under respective state governments, act as the bridge between CARA and the Specialized Adoption Agencies (SAAs). SARAs are responsible for:
- Identifying, accrediting, and monitoring SAAs
- Facilitating training and awareness programs
- Maintaining liaison with Child Welfare Committees (CWCs) and District Child Protection Units (DCPUs)
While this three-tier structure—comprising CARA, SARAs, and SAAs—appears comprehensive, its practical efficiency often suffers from overlapping jurisdictions and unclear accountability chains. SARAs in certain states remain underfunded or understaffed, and their monitoring capacity is limited. Consequently, CARA’s central monitoring often cannot translate into effective local enforcement. This misalignment between central regulation and state implementation forms one of the central challenges in ensuring efficient and transparent adoption governance.
Efficiency of the Adoption System
Efficiency, in the context of adoption, refers to the system’s ability to process applications, match children with suitable parents, and finalize adoptions within reasonable timeframes, without compromising legal safeguards. CARA’s introduction of the CARINGS portal was a landmark reform aimed at digitizing and streamlining the process. It enables online registration, centralized tracking, and data integration between agencies.
However, efficiency continues to be hampered by administrative bottlenecks. Reports indicate that adoption applications often exceed statutory timelines, with many cases delayed due to incomplete documentation, pending verifications, or judicial backlogs. The average waiting time for domestic adoption can range from 12 to 24 months, while inter-country adoptions often take longer due to additional compliance requirements.
Major Challenges Affecting Efficiency
- Low number of children legally free for adoption
- Delays by Child Welfare Committees in declaring legal status
- Shortage of trained social workers
- Inconsistent operating procedures across states
While some states like Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu have demonstrated improved efficiency through robust coordination and digital integration, others lag behind due to infrastructural and human resource constraints. The absence of standardized evaluation metrics for SARAs exacerbates the inconsistency across states, undermining the overall efficiency of the national system.
Transparency and Accountability in Adoption
Transparency in adoption processes is essential for maintaining trust, preventing malpractices, and safeguarding the rights of both children and adoptive parents. CARA’s adoption regulations emphasize transparency through public disclosure of adoption statistics, accreditation details of agencies, and publication of procedural guidelines. The CARINGS system enables adoptive parents to track the progress of their application in real time, reducing discretionary opacity.
However, several gaps persist. Some SARAs and SAAs fail to regularly update the CARINGS portal, creating discrepancies between recorded and actual data. This leads to instances where children available for adoption are not visible on the national registry. Lack of proactive disclosure of audit reports and inspection findings further weakens transparency. Moreover, the grievance redressal mechanism remains underdeveloped, often centralized at CARA, limiting accessibility for citizens at the grassroots level.
Key Issues Undermining Transparency
- Data discrepancies between local and central records
- Non-disclosure of audit and inspection reports
- Limited grievance redressal access at state level
- Allegations of intermediaries and unethical facilitation
Transparency also extends to ethical dimensions such as ensuring that no financial inducements or irregularities influence the adoption process. Allegations of intermediaries or unauthorized individuals facilitating adoptions have occasionally surfaced, particularly in inter-country contexts. Strengthening oversight, promoting whistle-blower protections, and instituting independent audits are essential to enhance transparency and restore public confidence in the adoption framework.
Judicial Approach to Adoption Governance
The Indian judiciary has significantly shaped adoption law by emphasizing the welfare of the child and the need for regulatory transparency. In Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984), the Supreme Court recognized the vulnerability of children in inter-country adoptions and laid down comprehensive guidelines for ensuring transparency, supervision, and periodic reporting. This judgment served as a precursor to India’s accession to the Hague Convention and the establishment of CARA.
In Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court reaffirmed adoption as a secular legal right available to all citizens, linking it to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The Court’s reasoning underscored that adoption transcends religious identity and must be guided solely by the best interests of the child.
Similarly, in Phillips Alfred Malvin v. Y.J. Gonsalvis (1999), the Court emphasized the necessity of procedural compliance, warning against informal adoptions that could lead to exploitation or trafficking. Through these pronouncements, the judiciary has continuously reinforced that efficiency and transparency are constitutional imperatives, intrinsically linked to the dignity and welfare of children.
Challenges in Implementation
Despite the legislative framework and judicial guidance, CARA and SARAs face numerous operational challenges. Resource scarcity remains one of the foremost issues—many state agencies lack adequate staffing, technical infrastructure, or funding to implement CARA’s directives effectively. This leads to poor record maintenance and irregular inspections of adoption homes.
Administrative Coordination Issues
Administrative coordination between CWCs, DCPUs, SARAs, and CARA is often weak, resulting in delays in declaring children legally free for adoption. Moreover, the centralized approval system for inter-country adoption increases workload at CARA’s headquarters, leading to procedural backlogs.
Transparency and Accountability Challenges
Transparency mechanisms also face hurdles due to inconsistent data reporting and absence of real-time auditing. The grievance redressal mechanism lacks independence, and there is minimal accountability for lapses or delays by state-level agencies. Public awareness about legal adoption procedures remains low, leading to the persistence of informal or illegal adoptions in certain regions.
- Inconsistent data reporting
- Absence of real-time audits
- Lack of independent grievance redressal
- Low public awareness on legal adoption
Comparative and International Perspective
Comparative analysis reveals valuable lessons for India.
| Country | Legislation | Key Features |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | Adoption and Children Act, 2002 | Independent inspection authorities, public disclosure of performance reports |
| United States | Adoption and Safe Families Act, 1997 | Federal standards, public databases, mandatory reporting |
| India | Juvenile Justice Act, CARA Guidelines | Centralized structure, lacks external review and ombudsman |
In contrast, India’s centralised structure, though comprehensive, lacks independent external review. The absence of a dedicated national ombudsman for adoption-related grievances means oversight remains internal and occasionally non-transparent. Learning from global models, India could benefit from introducing an independent oversight commission and establishing performance-based evaluations for CARA and SARAs to ensure greater accountability.
Policy Recommendations and Reform Measures
To strengthen efficiency and transparency, several policy reforms are essential.
1. Decentralization and Capacity Building
CARA should decentralize certain operational functions to SARAs, accompanied by strict performance evaluation metrics. Enhanced training and capacity-building programs for adoption officials and social workers can improve procedural consistency.
2. Independent National Adoption Ombudsman
Establishing an independent National Adoption Ombudsman could provide an impartial forum for grievance redressal and investigation into allegations of misconduct or delay. Regular third-party audits and publication of comprehensive annual reports can improve accountability.
3. Technology Integration
The use of technology must be deepened. Integrating artificial intelligence tools within CARINGS for better child-parent matching, real-time monitoring, and predictive analytics could enhance efficiency. Data protection and privacy safeguards must accompany such digital expansion to prevent misuse.
4. Awareness and Community Engagement
Awareness programs should target potential adoptive parents and communities to dispel myths surrounding legal adoption. Civil society participation and collaboration with NGOs can enhance public engagement and oversight, promoting a culture of transparency and trust.
Conclusion
The Central Adoption Resource Authority and the State Adoption Resource Agencies embody India’s institutional commitment to ensuring every child’s right to family and care. Over the past two decades, the country’s adoption framework has transitioned from a fragmented system to a unified and rights-based structure aligned with international norms.
Yet, the goals of efficiency and transparency remain works in progress. Delays, administrative overlap, lack of independent oversight, and inadequate resource allocation continue to undermine the system’s credibility. Reforms must therefore focus not only on technological modernization but also on strengthening human capacity, accountability mechanisms, and inter-agency coordination.
Ultimately, adoption governance is not merely a bureaucratic function but a moral responsibility. CARA and SARAs must strive to uphold the principles of child welfare, fairness, and openness. A transparent, efficient, and empathetic adoption system is essential to realizing the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and protection for every child in India.
