News Ticker

SC rejected PIL seeking CBI probe in adoption matters; asked Centre and States to make rules under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

New Delhi: The Central and State Governments are asked by the honourable Supreme Court to frame “requisite rules, regulations and guidelines” under the new Law, ensuring the welfare and interest of the kids in the circumstances of their Intra- country or inter- country adoption.

The bench of the Apex Court, headed by the Chief Justice of India- T. S. Thakur and comprising of Justice- R. Banumathi and Justice- U. U. Lalit stated that the interest of the Children, irrespective of their adoptions either intra- country or inter- country, has to be protected. And also, it said that the adoption process should also be transparent and the same should also be in the welfare of the children.

Further, the bench also declined to order the CBI (Central bureau of Investigation’s) Investigation into the alleged ongoing adoption racket in the country. Also, it has asked the NGO Advait Foundation, which is being petitioner in the case, to come out with the “specific allegations in the specific cases”. Thus, it is notably, the case of Public Interest Litigation- PIL which was filed by the concerned NGO Advait Foundation in the year 2012. Court, specifically, told to the petitioner- NGO that it will grant liberty for coming to the court or to the CBI with specific allegations, however, in all the cases the petitioner “cannot seek CBI investigation”, court said.

As such, the Court has disposed of the PIL filed by NGO and said that the Government has now come out with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015 on the issue. It was said by the court, after considering the responses preferred by the Additional Solicitor Generals- Tushar Mehta and Pinky Anand that the Centre, in pursuance of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, has now brought a new Juvenile Law which takes care of most of the grievances raised in the petition.

Moreover, on the submissions raised from the side of Petitioner, the bench rejected the same saying that the PIL cannot be kept raised pending further for ensuring the compliance of legal provisions.

Adv. Faim Khalilkhan Pathan

Leave a Reply