IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction) APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao W.P.A. No. 11067 of 2026 Mita Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar Ms. Tiana Bhattacharya Ms. Anshumala Bansal Ms. Deepti Priya Mr. Shubhayan Chakraborty ....For the petitioners. Mr. Siddartha Lahiri Mr. Sourav Sengupta ….For the U.O.I. Hearing Concluded On : 08.07.2026 Judgment Delivered On : 13.07.2026 Judgment Uploaded On : 13.07.2026 2 Krishna Rao, J.: 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for declaration that the process followed in regard to the third referral and resulting in the impugned debarment dated12th January, 2026by the respondent no. 2 is null and void ab inito. 2. On 29th January, 2020, the petitioners registered on the official portal of Central Adoption Resource Authority (hereinafter referred to as “CARA”) and have been allotted registration No. PrWe158139817. The petitioners have received their first referral for single girl child, namely, Anjali on 10th July, 2025, but due to some unavoidable circumstances, the petitioners were unable to avail the first referral. The second referral was made on 20th November, 2025, but the petitioners also missed the same. 3. On 22nd December, 2025, the petitioners got third referral for five years girl child, namely, Anamika from Specialized Adoption Agency (hereinafter referred to as “SAA”), namely, Sundarbai Mulchand Mahatta, Home Unit-II, West Bengal, being the respondent no. 5. The petitioners were provided Medical Examination Report of the child. Upon perusal of the medical report of the said child, it is found that in Part-D “Developmental Milestone Detail”, at Serial No. 2 under the heading “Vocalization or Language Development (age appropriate as applicable)”, it is recorded that the child does not vocalized with caregiver. 3 4. The prescriptions dated 30th July, 2025 and 19th August, 2025, issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, TLJ State General Hospital, North Ghusuri, Liluah, wherein it is recorded that the child is able to hear but is unable to speak, and advised to undergo speech therapy. The prescription dated 29th August, 2025, issued by the Department of ENT, Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, similarly records that the child is “unable to speak since birth” and recommends for speech therapy. On 22nd September, 2025, an assessment conducted at the Audio Vestibular Clinic, ENT OPD, Kolkata Medical College and Hospital and records that the child has a speech problem and relies on gestures to express herself. 5. Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar, Learned Advocate submits that the said child is 5 years old and falls within the category of a child with special needs as a significant speech impairment has persisted since birth. On 22nd December, 2025, the petitioners have made a complaint by an email to CARA by intimating that the child was with special needs. As CARA has not given any response to the information made by the petitioners and accordingly on 23rd December, 2025, the petitioners have again sent an email keeping in view that the period of 48 hours for reserving the child is going to be expired on 24th December, 2025. 6. Mr. Sarkar submits that on 24th December, 2025, the said emails were forwarded to State Adoption Resource Authority (hereinafter referred to as “SARA”), the respondent no.3 herein and requested to issue directions upon Specialized Adoption Agency (herein after referred to as 4 “SAA”), the respondent no.5 herein to coordinate with prospective adoptive parents and to provide the report of the Chief Medical Officer (hereinafter referred to as “CMO”) in accordance with Part E, Schedule III of the Adoption Regulations, 2022. On 24th December, 2025, the SAA has sent a reply stating that the child is healthy and developmentally normal, age appropriate and that the prescription dated 19th August, 2025, was the “observation of an abandoned child” who came into SAA on 28th July, 2025. On 24th December, 2025, SARA sent an email to CARA stating that the child is normal, so Part-E of the Medical Examination Report is not available. 7. On 31st December, 2025, SARA sent an email to CARA stating that the said child is healthy and developmentally normal and age appropriate and attaching Medical Examination Report. On 31st December, 2025, CARA sent an email to SARA asking for CMO report as CMO report was not shared and it was informed that there is a medical grievance in the case and CMO report is mandatory for addressing the grievance. 8. By an email dated 12th January, 2026, it was informed to the petitioners that the child has been declared normal by CMO hence the grievance raised by the petitioners is treated as closed and it was further informed to the petitioners that the petitioners will receive the next referral based on their active application status. 9. Mr. Sarkar submits that on 22nd December, 2025, third referral came to the petitioners for a five years old girl child but as per the report 5 from government hospital, the child was with special needs child with speech impairment and accordingly the petitioners without wasting the time immediately consulted their doctors and thereafter sent an email to the respondent no. 2 with the copy to the respondent no. 3 informing that the Medical Examination Report of the child dated 19th August, 2025, was diagnosed with inability to speak and thereafter the respondent authorities continued corresponding with regard to the medical status of the child and thus the petitioners could not be able to give consent within 48 hours as prescribed under law. 10. Mr. Sarkar submits that on 24th December, 2025, the respondent no. 2 informed the respondent no. 3 that the Prospective Adoptive Parents (hereinafter referred to as “PAPs”) have raised concern regarding the health of the referred child and did not reserved the child and accordingly, the child is blocked from the referral cycle dated 24th December, 2025 for considering the matter on priority basis. 11. Mr. Sarkar submits that on 24th December, 2025, the respondent no. 5 informed the respondent no. 3 that the child is healthy and developmentally normal and the prescription dated 19th August, 2025, is of the abandoned child and not the child, namely, Anamika. He submits that though the respondent no. 5 has informed that the report dated 19th August, 2025, is of the abandoned child but the same is to be clarified by the authorities and CMO report is required under Part E, Schedule III of the Adoption Regulations, 2022 and the authorities have also processed for the report of the CMO which was received only on 6 12th January, 2026, and immediately after receipt of the report, the respondent no. 2 has closed the grievance of the petitioners without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to give consent to adopt the said child within 48 hours after receipt of report from the CMO. 12. Mr. Sarkar submits that as per the impugned decision of the respondent no. 2 dated 12th January, 2026, the petitioners have to wait till the next referral and by that time, the petitioners will be over aged to take the child in adoption in terms of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022 and will not be in a position to adopt any child. 13. Mr. Siddartha Lahiri, Learned Advocate representing the respondent authorities submits that on 22nd December, 2025, the third referral was given to the petitioners to adopt the child but the petitioners failed to give their consent within 48 hours and as such the respondent authorities have no other alternative but to give the said child in adoption to the next PAPs who were in serial as per the list maintained by the authority. 14. Mr. Lahiri submits that this was the third referral and the petitioners failed to give their consent within 48 hours and if the petitioners intent to take the child on adoption, the petitioners have to apply a fresh and whenever the turn of the petitioners will come, the same will be considered according to seniority. 7 15. Mr. Lahiri submits on instructions that at present there is no child with the respondent no. 5 to give an adoption as the child which was referred to the petitioners for adoption, has already been given in adoption. 16. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the materials on record. 17. On 22nd December, 2025, third referral was given to the petitioners for adoption of the child from respondent no. 5. The Medical Examination Report provided to the petitioners with respect to the said child reveals that the child does not vocalized with the caregiver. After going through the medical report, the petitioners have sent an email to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 informing that the said fact as the child is with special needs. As the child falls within the category of special needs, as per Part-E, Schedule III of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, a report from the Chief Medical Officer of the concerned District is required. 18. In the meantime on 24th December, 2025, the respondent no. 5 has informed that this medical certificate provided to the petitioners is not of the child, which is to be given on adoption to the petitioners and the said report is one of abandoned child. Confusion has been created in the mind of the petitioners with regard to the medical report of the child as the name and age appearing in the medical report of the child is the similar. The respondents also have proceeded to obtain report from the Chief Medical Officer. In the email dated 24th December, 2025, the 8 respondent no. 2 has informed the respondent no. 3 that the petitioners have raised concern regarding the health of the referral child and did not reserve the child and accordingly the child is blocked from referral cycle dated 24th December, 2025. 19. By an email dated 24th December, 2025, the child was blocked from the referral cycle and the respondent authorities have processed for obtaining Medical Examination Report from the Chief Medical Officer. By an email dated 24th December, 2025, the respondent no. 2informed the respondent no. 3 that there is a medical grievance and hence CMO report is mandatory for addressing the grievance. 20. The CMO has submitted the report on 12th January, 2026, and immediately after receipt of the report, the grievance of the petitioners was closed and directed the petitioners that they will receive the next referral based on their active application status. 21. After receipt of the grievance of the petitioners, the respondents were of the view that the grievance of the petitioners is to be considered only after receipt of CMO report and by an email dated 24th December, 2025, the child was blocked from the referral cycle and if the child is blocked from the referral cycle and CMO report was awaited, how the respondents have given the said child on adoption to other PAPs who were in que without waiting for the CMO report and without giving an opportunity to the petitioners after receipt of CMO report. 9 22. The respondents ought to have given an opportunity of 48 hours to the petitioners for giving consent of the child after receipt of report from the CMO as per Part E, Schedule III of the Adoption Regulations, 2022 but the respondents failed to give the said opportunity to the petitioners and on the other hand, the respondent authorities have given the said child in adoption to the next PAPs in the meantime. 23. Regulation 5 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, provides the procedure relating to the eligibility criteria for PAPs. Sub-regulation (8) of the said Regulation provides that the PAPs have to revalidate their Home study report after the period of three years. The age of the PAPs is prescribed under sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 5. At the time of registration on the portal of CARA on 29th January, 2020, the petitioner no. 1 was aged about 47 years, 2 (two) months and 06 days and the petitioner no. 2 was aged about 49 years, 8 months and 7 days, thus the composite age of the couples was 96 years 10 months and 13 days. As on 12th January, 2026, the composite age of the petitioners was 108 years, 9 months and 03 days. 24. Regulation 5(4) provides a chart relating to the maximum composite age of PAPs couple or a single PAP vis-a-vis the age of the child. The maximum composite age of the petitioners was required to be 110 years. Sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 5 provides that the age of PAPs as on the date of registration shall be counted for deciding the eligibility of PAPs for children of different age groups. 10 25. Sub-regulation (9) of Regulation 5 stipulates the seniority of the PAPs who have not received a single referral within three years shall be counted from their date of registration except those who have crossed composite years of 110 years. Sub-regulation (8) of Regulation 5 provides that PAPs have to revalidate their Home Study Report (hereinafter referred to as “HSR”) after the period of three years. In the present case, initially the HSR was uploaded on 29th January, 2020, subsequently after the period of three years the same was revalidated. Before expiry of the revalidation period, on 22nd December, 2025, third referral came to the PAPs but due to confusion with regard to the medical report of the child and not getting the CMO report, the PAPs could not able to give their consent and adoption was not completed. Now, the composite age of the petitioners is 108 years. The age of PAPs on the date of registration shall be counted for deciding the eligibility of PAPs for children of different age groups. Clause 14 of Regulation 11 provides that in case, the PAPs who do not accept a reserved child, they will be relegated to the bottom of the seniority list as, on that date and may avail a fresh chance when the seniority becomes due. 26. In the present case, the PAPs have not given consent only because of confusion in the medical report. By an email dated 24th December, 2025, it was informed by the respondent no. 2 to the respondent no. 3 the PAPs have raised concern regarding the health of the referral child 11 and did not reserve the child and also taken note that the child is blocked from the referral cycle dated 24th December, 2025. 27. This Court already held in the paragraphs21 and 22(supra) that the respondents have to wait till the report from the CMO is not received but without waiting the report of the CMO have given the said child to other PAPs without considering that the concern raised by the petitioners is pending due to non-availability of the report of the CMO. 28. Taking into consideration of the above circumstances, this Court finds that the third referral was given to the PAPs on 22nd December, 2025, and on the said date, the PAPs were within the prescribed age limit and the report of the CMO also received within the prescribe period but without giving an opportunity to the PAPs for giving consent after receipt of the CMO report have simply closed the grievance of the PAPs. 29. It is the admitted case of the respondents that due to some confusion with regard to the health issue of the child, the PAPs raised concern and to clear the confusion in the mind of the PAPs and to ascertain with regard to the health condition of the child, the respondents processed for CMO’s Report and was received only on 12th January, 2026, after receipt of the CMO’s Report, no further opportunity was given to the petitioners for their consent. 30. Regulation11(13) of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, provides that if grounds of rejection after the enquiry are found to be due to systemic 12 error or on non-justifiable reasons, seniority of the PAPs shall be retained. 31. As on 12th January, 2026, the revalidation periods of the petitioners were valid and due to the impugned decision of respondent no.1, the adoption procedure could not be completed. The petitioners are given liberty to immediately revalidate their HSR and immediately after revalidation, the respondents are directed to give the first preference of available child with the SAA to the petitioners by treating serial no. 1 in seniority, if the child is fit for adoption and to take appropriate steps to complete adoption process if the petitioners give their consent within 48 hours from referral. 32. The impugned decision of the respondent no. 2 dated 12thJanuary, 2026, wherein the grievance of the petitioners treated as closed and directed to review on next referral based on their active application status is set aside and quashed. 33. WPA No. 11067 of 2026 is allowed. Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the Judgment placed on the official website of the Court. Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)