By Palak Jain, NLIU Bhopal

“Editor’s Note: International adoption (also referred to as intercountry

adoption or transnational adoption) is a type of adoption in which an individual or couple
becomes the legal and permanent parent(s) of a child who is a national of a different country.
In general, prospective adoptive parents must meet the legal adoption requirements of their
country of residence and those of the country whose nationality the child holds. The laws of
countries vary in their willingness to allow international adoptions. Some countries, such as
China and South Korea, have relatively well-established rules and procedures for
international adoptions, while other countries expressly forbid it. Some countries, notably
many African nations, have extended residency requirements for adoptive parents that in
effect rule out most international adoptions. The author, in this paper, attempts to elucidate
on the various pressing issues relating to inter country adoptions. Also, she recommends
certain changes in the contemporary framework on this point for Indian legal system.”

Origins of Inter–Country Adoptions

“Every child has a right to love and be loved and to grow up in an atmosphere of love and
affection and of moral and material security and this is possible only if the child is brought up
in a family. The most congenial environment would, of course, be that of the family of his
biological parents. But if for any reason it is not possible for the biological parents or other
near relative to look after the child or the child is abandoned and it is either not possible to
trace the parents or the parents are not willing to take care of the child, the next best
alternative would be to find adoptive parents for the child so that the child can grow up under
the loving care and attention of the adoptive parents.”[i]

The practice of inter-country adoption came about largely as a humane response to the plight
of war orphans and the abandoned children of servicemen in World War II, the Korean War
and the Vietnam War.

Today, the main receiving countries are the United States, Canada and the developed
countries of Western Europe. Factors such as the decline in fertility associated with stalling
marriage, the limited success rate and high cost of infertility treatment and a lack of domestic
adoption opportunities have made inter-country adoption an alternative to childless couples in
the receiving countries.

However, in states of origin or sending countries, extreme poverty, lack of contraception and
society’s attitudes to birth of illegitimate children are three major factors leading to the
abandonment of children to institutions.[ii] The concept of “male” child also leads to the
abandonment of the girl child which is an unfortunate reality in our own country.

International and regional legislative framework

At global level, it is of course the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the “CRC”) that
now constitutes the basic standard-setting text on adoption. Inter-country adoption is
specifically regulated by the ‘1993 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and
Cooperation in Respect of Inter-country Adoption’ (the “HC”), which has now been ratified
by about 90 States.
The approach of international legislators to adoption changed at the end of the 20th century as
a result of serious concerns on adoption-related abuses that were being increasingly expressed
at that time.

CRC Article 21 includes the obligation to “ensure that the child concerned in inter-country
adoption enjoys safeguards and standards equivalent to those existing in the case of national
adoption.”[iii]

The CRC places major emphasis on the importance and role of the parents and family as the
child’s primary caregivers, and requires, first and foremost, States to assist them when they
have difficulty in fulfilling their responsibilities appropriately. Only when, despite such
efforts, the child is “deprived of his or her family environment”, or cannot be allowed to
remain therein in light of his or her best interests, does the obligation of the State to “ensure
alternative care for the child” becomes operative.[iv] And it is only when, in that case, the
State is unable to ensure that the child is “placed in a foster or an adoptive family” or is cared
for “in any suitable manner in the child’s country of origin” that inter-country adoption “may
be considered”.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is the treaty body monitoring compliance
with the CRC, has expressed concerns over violations of inter-country adoption standards in
the case of many countries, and strongly recommends all States involved in inter-country
adoption that they ratify the Hague Convention as one means of addressing the problems.

The Hague Convention sets out to do two main things, both unequivocally directed towards
protecting the child from illicit practices related to inter-country adoption, rather than to
promoting the practice as such:

1. “to establish safeguards to ensure that inter-country adoption takes place in the best
interests of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental rights as recognized in
international law”; and

2. “to establish a system of cooperation among Contracting States to ensure that those
safeguards are respected and thereby prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in
children.”[v]

In many ways, it is therefore an implementing treaty for the CRC as regards inter-country
adoption. Thus, as a private law instrument, it puts in place guarantees, procedures and
mechanisms that facilitate States’ compliance with, in particular, their obligations under the
relevant CRC provisions.

The system of cooperation established by the HC revolves around a governmental “Central

Authority” in each country to oversee adoptions and to serve as focal point on inter-country
adoption issues with its counterparts in other States. The treaty foresees that “adoption
bodies”, or agencies, duly accredited by the Central Authority in the receiving country can
carry out a range of tasks related to the adoption process, notably regarding assistance to
adoptive parents before, during and after the adoption takes place. If also specifically
authorized by the Central Authority in the country of origin, the adoption body can also
provide such assistance directly in that country.
The HC notably puts in place concrete application of the “subsidiarity principle”, setting out
procedures based on the fact that a child may be considered for inter-country adoption only if
“possibilities for placement of the child within the State of origin have been given due
consideration.”[vi] Other particularly important elements of the HC include: the requirement
to determine the fitness of applicants to proceed with an adoption; the implicit prohibition of
non-regulated and private adoptions, since all prospective adopters are to undertake the
process through the Central Authority or an accredited agency; prohibition of contact
between prospective adoptive parents and the child’s parents or other caregiver/s before the
child has been pronounced adoptable and valid consents have been obtained; commitment to
ensuring free and informed consent for adoption with no inducement of any kind; and the
automatic recognition of Hague-compliant adoptions by all States Parties.

The 1993 Convention asserts that authorities must ensure, taking into account the age and
degree of maturity of the child, that he or she has been counseled and informed of the effects
of the adoption and of his or her consent to the adoption, where such consent is required; that
consideration has been given to the child’s wishes and opinions; that the child’s consent to
the adoption has been given freely, in the required legal form, and in writing; and that consent
has not been induced by payment or compensation of any kind (article 4(d)). Information on
the child’s origin, in particular the identity of the parents as well as the medical history,
should be preserved, but access by the child to that information is permitted only insofar as it
is allowed by the law of the State where it is held (article 30). Personal data gathered or
transmitted under the 1993 Convention’s provisions is to be used “only for the purposes for
which they were gathered or transmitted,” without prejudice to article 30 (article 31).

Formal monitoring of the operation of the HC is entrusted to a “Special Commission” which

comprises of all Contracting States.[vii] It has so far met three times, in 2000, 2005 and most
recently in June 2010. The recommendations it makes are advisory in nature.

There are various other regional instruments as well that protect and promote children’s
rights, particularly in matters of adoption, these are European Convention on the Exercise of
Children’s Rights (ECECR), European Convention on the Adoption of Children 1967 and
Inter-American Convention on Conflict of Laws Concerning the Adoption of Minors 1984.

Adoptions from non-Hague countries

Despite the ever-growing number of countries that have ratified it, the majority of inter-
country adoptions still take place outside this framework.

Non-Hague countries whose adoption procedures continue to be subject to less stringent

conditions may well be more open to allowing growing numbers of their children to be
adopted abroad: for example, ICAs from Ethiopia continued to grow substantially throughout
the past decade, from a few hundred per year at the start to over 4,000 in 2009.

Non-Hague countries therefore tend to be relatively attractive partners for inter-country

adoption. If this turns out to result in ever-increasing pressure on those countries to institute
or further develop inter-country adoption to “compensate” for reductions in Hague-compliant
counterparts, rather than genuine instigation to ratify the treaty, the true aims of adoption,
including inter-country adoption, would once again be severely compromised.

Adoption following disasters

The agreed policy of all major international agencies concerned is now that inter-country
adoption should not be envisaged during or in the immediate aftermath of disaster situations,
a position reflected by Guidelines adopted by the United Nations in 2009.[viii] A 1994
recommendation related to the HC already established that principle as regards the potential
adoption of child refugees.[ix] The main concern underlying this approach is that
considerable time is needed to ascertain whether children who may apparently be orphaned or
abandoned have in fact simply been separated involuntarily from their parents or other family
members as a result of the disaster.

The January 2010 earthquake in Haiti demonstrated the fragility of its application. In addition
to the fact that Haiti is not a party to the HC, and that its adoption system was already known
to be at unacceptable variance with international standards, three major factors contributed to
the problems encountered in this specific case:

 Adoption orders regarding hundreds of children had already been granted at the time
of the earthquake, but travel documents for these children had not been issued, and
hundreds of other children were at some stage in the adoption process or had simply
been preliminarily and unofficially identified as adoptable;
 Receiving countries took differing stances in relation to the status of the children who
they were prepared to evacuate and how this was to be done;
 It was not only legally adopted children whose transfer abroad was expedited but also
many whose adoption was hurriedly “signed off” administratively, under pressure,
including some who had not even been matched with prospective adopters.

Laws of Adoption in India

At the International level, India has ratified the Convention on the Rights of Child and the
Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption of Children. The principal law relating to
adoption in India under the Hindu system is contained in the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and The Amendment Act,
2006 guarantees rights to an adopted child as recognized under international obligations by
all Hague member countries. The JJ Act, 2000, however did not define ‘adoption’ and it is
only by the amendment of 2006 that the meaning thereof came to be expressed in the
following terms:

“2(aa)-‘adoption’ means the process through which the adopted child is permanently
separated from his biological parents and become the legitimate child of his adoptive parents
with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that are attached to the relationship”.

The amendment emphasized that adoption under this legislation would allow an adopted
child to become the “legitimate child of his adoptive parents, with the rights, privileges and
responsibilities attached to the relationship. This is a significant move considering till then,
adoption by non-Hindus was guided by the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. Minority castes
such as Christians, Muslims or Parsis did not recognize adoption hence the adoptive parents
had to remain as guardians to their adopted children as per the Guardian and Wards Act,
1890.
In exercise of the rule making power vested by Section 68 of the JJ Act, 2000, the JJ Rules,
2007 were enacted, which now stand repealed by a fresh set of Guidelines published by
Notification dated 24.6.2011 of the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government
of India under Section 41(3) of the JJ Act. As a matter of fact, by virtue of the provisions of
Rule 33(2) it is the Guidelines of 2011 notified under Section 41(3) of the JJ Act which will
now govern all matters pertaining to inter-country adoptions virtually conferring on the said
Guidelines a statutory flavour and sanction.

Rule 8(5) prescribes priorities for rehabilitation of a child and it is mentioned that preference
has to be given for placing a child in in-country adoption and the ratio of in-country adoption
to inter-country adoption shall be 80:20 of total adoptions processed annually by a RIPA,
excluding special needs children.

Rule 8(6) mentions the order of priority which is to be followed in cases of inter-country
adoptions, which is as under:-

(i) Non Resident Indian (NRI)

(ii) Overseas Citizen of India (OCI)

(iii) Persons of Indian Origin (PIO)

(iv) Foreign Nationals

Rule 31 speaks about power of the State Government to constitute a Committee to be known
as the Adoption Recommendation Committee (ARC) to scrutinize and issue a
Recommendation Certificate for placement of a child in inter-country adoption.

Concept of Inter-Country Adoption in India

The question regarding the validity of inter-country adoption was first debated in the well-
known case of In Re Rasiklal Chhaganlal Mehta[x] whereby the Court held that inter-
country adoptions under Sec 9(4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
1956 should be legally valid under the laws of both the countries. The adoptive parents must
fulfill the requirement of law of adoptions in their country and must have the requisite
permission to adopt from the appropriate authority thereby ensuring that the child would not
suffer in immigration and obtaining nationality in the adoptive parents’ country.

The Supreme Court of India in a public interest litigation petition, Laxmi Kant Pandey v.
Union of India, had framed the guidelines governing inter-country adoptions for the benefit
of the Government of India. A regulatory body, i.e., Central Adoption Resource Agency (for
short ‘CARA’) was recommended and accordingly set up by the Government of India in the
year 1989.

Since then, the agency has been playing a pivotal role, laying down norms both substantive
and procedural, in the matter of inter as well as in country adoptions. The said norms have
received statutory recognition on being notified by the Central Govt. under Rule 33 (2) of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and are today in force
throughout the country, having also been adopted and notified by several states under the
Rules framed by the states in exercise of the Rule making power under Section 68 of the JJ
Act, 2000.

In the case of Mr. Craig Allen Coates v. State through Indian Council for Child Welfare
and Welfare Home for Children[xi] the Court held that where the adoptive parents fail to
establish clearly the motive for adopting a child from another country, then the adoption
process would be barred and be declared as mala fide and that CARA should ensure more
stricter guidelines in this regard.

One of the most significant issues in inter-country adoptions is finding prospective adoptive
parents, preferably of Indian origin. The Supreme Court of India, in the Karnataka State
Council for Child Welfare v. Society of Sisters of Charity St Gerosa Convent, had held that
the rationale behind finding Indian parents or parents of Indian origin is to ensure the
well-being of the children and that they grow up in Indian surroundings so that they can
retain their culture and heritage. The best interest of the children is the main and prime
consideration.

Bombay High Court in a recent judgment, Varsha Sanjay Shinde & Anr. v. Society of
Friends of the Sassoon Hospital and others[xii], held that once a child is approved by an
Oversees couple after the due procedure is followed, the same child cannot be shown to other
Indian parents and that such Indian Parents then cannot claim any right or priority to get the
child merely because they are Indian Parents and preference should be given to them over
Overseas Indians and Foreign Couples. Although the main issues was decided the Court kept
the petition pending in order to see the compliance of directions given by the Court for giving
the child to the Overseas Indian Couple and to ensure that the Indian Parents (Petitioners)
also get a child expeditiously.

Court further laid down following guidelines for in-country and inter-country adoptions to be
read and applied in consonance with Guidelines of 2011:

(i) All the concerned Agencies viz RIPA, Specialized Adoption Agencies, SARA, ARC, AFAA
to scrupulously follow the Guidelines which have been laid down in 2011

(ii) Though there is no specific number mentioned in the Guidelines as to the number of
Indian parents to whom the child should be shown, within a period of 3/4 weeks, the child
should be shown to as many Indian parents as possible and, secondly, at a time, the child
should be shown only to one parent and not multiple number of parents as has been done in
the present case.

(iii) Only if the child is not accepted by Indian parents and the Adoption Agencies on account
of their experience come to conclusion that the child is not likely to be taken in adoption by
Indian parents then, in that case, it should be shown to foreign parents.

(iv) When the child is shown to the foreign parents, it should be shown in the list of priorities
which are mentioned in the said Guidelines.

(vi) ARC and SARA should work not in conflict but in coordination with CARA, it being the
Centralized Nodal Agency.
Another latest judgment[xiii] is that of Delhi High Court where the issue involved was
whether adoptions made directly by biological parents of a child without intervention of
CARA are valid in eyes of law. It was the argument of counsels of petitioners that the
intercession of CARA was mandated only in cases of those children who are orphaned or
abandoned by their biological parents. It was the stand of CARA that the legislative mandate
for the same is found in the amendment made in 2006 to the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 by introducing Sub-Section (2) in Section 41 of the JJ Act.
It is thus contended that the rehabilitative measures for children in need of care and
protection through means of adoption applies, not only to orphaned and abandoned children,
but also to, surrendered children. In other words, according to the stand taken by CARA, the
term “surrendered children” would include “children which are given in adoption by their
biological parents directly to the adoptive parents”.

Court said that even in absence of any guidelines court is not disempowered to direct the
State to carry out an investigation in the interest of child both in country of origin and
receiving country through a recognized agency. Court, however, left the matter to the wisdom
of a larger bench in order to answer the following questions that came up in the petition:

(i) Whether the term “surrendered child” will include those children who are directly taken
in adoption from their biological parents without the intercession of any specialized agency
or child welfare committee?

(ii) Whether, in case of direct adoption, the 2011 Guidelines and the provisions of Section
41(3) and (4) of the JJ Act are applicable?

(iii). If the answer to issue no.(i) and (ii) is in the affirmative, to what extent the 2011
Guidelines would apply to direct adoptions?

(iv) Can the court direct State to discharge its duty in its capacity as parens patriae to carry
out an investigation so as to safeguard the interest and/or rights of the child conferred on
him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?

Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA)

It is an Autonomous Body under the Ministry of Women and Child Development,
Government of India and is responsible for both in-country and inter-country adoptions in
India. The CARA Guidelines requires that every application from a foreigner wishing to
adopt a child must be sponsored by a social or child welfare agency recognized or licensed by
the government of the country in which the foreigner is resident. The agency should be
recognized by CARA.

The CARA guidelines depict in the beginning that it encourages in country adoption rather
than inter-country adoption and only where the child finds no suitable home in the country,
trans-national adoption would be considered.

The guidelines also provide that all Child Care Institutions (CCI) must be registered under the
provisions laid down under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Amendment Act, 2006 as per Section-34 (3). The State Government shall recognize suitable
CCI’s as specialized adoption agencies under Section 41(4) of the Juvenile Justice
Amendment Act, 2006. The specialized adoption agencies can turn into agencies for inter-
country adoption only when they have proper infrastructure for normal adoptable children as
well as children with special needs, and have quality child care services. In addition to these,
they must comply with all the requirements of CARA.

Who are adoptable for inter-country adoption?

As per CARA guidelines and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Amendment Act
2006, only three types of children are recognized as adoptable. These include children who
are orphans and are already under the care of some specialized adoption agency, abandoned
and those who are surrendered. In case of an abandoned child below two years, such
declaration shall be done within a period of sixty days from the time the child is found. For
an abandoned child above two years of age, such a declaration shall be done within the period
of four months. In case of a surrendered child, two months reconsideration time shall be
given to the biological parent or parents after surrender before declaring the child legally free
for adoption.

Problems subsisting in inter-country adoptions

Child trafficking in the guise of transnational adoption

The biggest threat to the child in inter-country adoption is becoming a victim of child
trafficking racket. After the domestic procedure for adoption by the foreign adopting parents
is over, it becomes more a question of international law and international treaties to look after
the well being of the child. Moreover, the lack of awareness regarding the legal procedures
for inter-country adoption has given rise to many fake adoption agencies. Children are sold
abroad by providing false information about them, falsifying documents, and making use of
loopholes in the adoption guidelines prescribed by the Supreme Court.

Post adoption negligence

When the child is given for inter-country adoption, post adoption follow-ups become
increasingly difficult. Even though CARA guidelines outline the role of the Indian diplomatic
missions, foreign accredited agencies and professional social workers in protecting a child
from post adoption maltreatment, it has virtually not helped anyone.

Post adoption domestic succession

Once the testator dies after bequeathing the property in the name of the child who had been
given in adoption, the identity of the child has to be proved. In cases where there is a
challenge to the succession by other survivors, the procedure becomes even tougher. The
country of residence will take the matter as per the laws of domicile and if such succession
becomes legally void due to any unfortunate mistake, the adopted child would never be able
to claim legal rights of the property and thereby has to suffer great financial, physical and
emotional agony. Unfortunately India has not entered into any agreement or treaties to solve
such succession matters. The British law still rules the courts in such cases. Every adopted
child develops a strong inclination to know his/ her roots at some point of time. Such legal
turmoil over successions from the biological family may even leave the adoptee in great
frustration.

Post adoption identity crisis

Juvenile Justice Care and Protection(Amended) Act), 2006 specifies that a child can be
adopted by any individual, irrespective of his/her marital status, by parents who wish to adopt
a child of same sex irrespective of the number of living biological sons or daughters, or by
couples who have no children of their own. It has made adoption a simpler and universal law
than the traditional laws. The law is still tricky, however, in case of inter-country adoptions as
prospective foreign parents still have to first take the role of guardians and take the child to
their country. The process has to be finished there as neither the new law nor any existing law
specifically mentions a procedure in cases of overseas adoption. Once the child becomes
ready for overseas adoption, the international law needs to recognize Indian adoption
procedure and the child is adopted according to the laws of the country of adoptive parents’
residence. The child becomes the ultimate sufferer unless the “guardians” turn real parents as
per the law of his new residence.

Guidelines lack force of law

CARA guidelines most often lack the force of law. Hence the parties never really remain
obliged to follow the guidelines or even the Indian law in case the habitual resident belongs
to a country which is not a member or has relinquished its membership from the convention.
The guidelines fail to ensure the health, safety and adjustment of the child after he/she has
left India. It should be noted that as the numbers of adoptions increase, the number
of regulations followed are lesser. The guidelines should have put a maximum number of
adoption procedures a month, by each adoption agency so that social workers, the authorities,
and voluntary coordination committees would not be overburdened. Lack of regular checks at
the adoption agencies and the manner in which they operate can also lead to many problems.

Since the CARA guidelines mention nothing about any penal actions against unrecognized
adoption agencies, child trafficking in the name of inter-country adoption has gotten an easy
way out.

Recommendations
Inter-country adoption has to be dealt with great care as it often opens up floodgates of child
trafficking, child exploitation and sexual harassment of children. The suggestions are:

 CARA guidelines should have two chapters separately dealing with in country and
inter-country adoptions.
 Penal offences must be included in case of any sort of failure by the agencies to
comply with the rules and regulations.
 Licensing procedure for the adoption agencies should be made stricter.
 Awareness programmes should be arranged for the poor, needy women and parents in
case they want to give their child up for adoption, to go through the correct legal
procedures rather than becoming the victims of touts.

Specific recommendations in relation to inter-country adoption:

 prevent any risk of children becoming stateless in the inter-country adoption

process, inter alia by ensuring that they will receive the nationality of their adoptive
parents;
 adopt a particularly vigilant approach during and following emergency situations to
prevent potential abuses and violations of international obligations.
  Non-Hague compliant countries should be encouraged to ratify the treaty.
 Professional counseling must be done by a team consisting of recognized child
psychologists, professional social workers and legal practitioners who are familiar
with the international law of the receiving country.
 The immigration procedure for the adopted child must be done carefully in order to
prevent child trafficking.
 Before the adoption case is opened it should be mandatory to check the bilateral
relationship of the receiving country with India.

Conclusion
International agreements have been developed to address the changing face of adoption. The
standards and safeguards they establish are essentially directed towards ensuring four things:

1. that the adoptability of children is always determined in the right way.

2. that intercountry adoption is considered and carried out for the right reasons.
3. that each child is adopted by the right person(s).
4. that the adoption is carried out in the right manner.

Inter-country or transnational adoption may become the best option for orphan children to
start a fresh life in a new country. But when the country of domicile for these children does
not have any proper law to show them their destiny, violation of their rights is very much
definite to take place. The country desperately needs better laws and guideline for inter-
country adoption. The authorities need to ensure thorough checks of every adoption agency to
ensure that they are protecting the child’s rights as has been provided in the constitution and
the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act, 2006. Every child has a right to life, home and
education. It is essential that the authorities not only make laws to provide safer transnational
adoption to the children but also to ensure safety of the child even abroad.

It is a common situation in India that the judges dealing with adoption cases, especially in
small towns and cities in India, are not predominantly acquainted with the interpretation of
the inter-country adoption guidelines. Hence, in this regard, a uniform but stringent procedure
must be developed which can be easily followed and observed keeping in regard the human
spirit. As has been seen, Courts, though slowly and steadily, are approaching every possible
dimension of this issue and are laying down norms for eliminating any legal or emotional
havoc for the child or his biological and adoptive parents.

Unless agencies systematically refuse to operate in the framework of systems that are in clear
violation of international norms, they may find themselves complicit in abuses. If prospective
adopters do not receive accurate and dispassionate information on inter-country adoption
needs, they will not be able to adjust their plans and expectations accordingly. Thus, each
actor in the process carries a particular responsibility, and all need to, and must, seek
cooperation with one another to maximize the impact of their efforts.

Formatted on 14th March 2019.

Footnotes
[i] AIR 1984 SC 469
[ii] D. Howe, P. Sawbridge, and D. Hinings, “Half a Million Women”, New York: Penguin,
1992.

[iii] Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 21(c).

[iv] Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 20.

[v] Hague Convention, Preamble and Article 1.

[vi] Hague Convention, Article 4.

[vii] Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the Hague Convention of 29 May
1993.

[viii] Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children, UN Doc. A/RES/64/142.

[ix] Recommendation concerning the application to refugee children and other internationally
displaced children of the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993, adopted 21 October 1994.

[x] AIR 1982 Guj. 193

[xi] 162(2009) DLT 605

[xii] Writ Petition no. 9227 of 2013 Decided on 18th October, 2013

[xiii] Dr. Abha Aggarwal v. CARA W.P. NO. 2701 of 2012 & Promila Ann Massey v.
CARA; W.P. No. 3279 of 2012 (the two petitions were clubbed togetherand disposed as one)
decided on 24 Jan 2013