Gauhati High Court - Itanagar
Dasanglu Pul vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 5 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC040007342020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : WP(C)/286/2020
Dasanglu Pul
W/O LT. KALIKHO PUL, VILLAGE-WALLA HAWAI, PO/PS HAWAI, DISTRICT
ANJAW, AP.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINITRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. INDIA, WEST BLOCK 8, WING-II, FIRST FLOOR,
RAMA KRISHNA PURMA, NEW DELHI 2:THE MEMBER SECRETARY -CUM-
CEO
Age: 0
Occupation :
ENTRAL ADOPTION RESOURCES AUTHORITY (CARA)
MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
GOVT. OF INDIA
WEST BLOCK 8
WING-II
FIRST FLOOR
RAMA KRISHNA PURMA
NEW DELHI-110066
3:THE STATE OF AP
Age: 0
Occupation :
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY-CUM-CHAIRPERSON
STATE ADOPTION RESOURCE AGENCY (SARA) DEPTT. OF WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT GOVT. OF AP
ITANAGAR.
4:THE DISTRICT CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE
Age: 0
Occupation :
Page No.# 2/6
TEZU
DISTRICT LOHIT
AP
THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON.
5:THE DISTRICT CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE
Age: 0
Occupation :
ROING
LOWER DIBANG VALLEY
AP THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON.
6:THE MANAGING SECRETARY
Age: 0
Occupation :
NANI MARIA SPECIALIZED ADOPTION AGENCY (SAA)
ROING
UNDER STATE ADOPTION RESOURCE AGENCY (SARA)
DEPTT. OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
GOVT. OF AP
ITANAGAR
Advocate for the Petitioner : Sunil Mow, k N Maling,M Opo,Madan Mili
Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Marto Kato,DSGI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
Date : 05-02-2026 Heard Shri S. Mow, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri M. Kato, learned DSGI for the respondents No.2 and Shri S. Tapin, learned senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh.
2. Considering that this matter is pending since the year 2020, and as to agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
Page No.# 3/6
3. The facts projected is that on 23.03.2020, a new born baby girl was found abandoned in the jungle of Paya village under Sunapura Circle in the District of Lohit in a critical physical condition and was admitted in the Zonal Hospital, Tezu. The petitioner on getting the information had provided for all financial assistance for the treatment of the baby. After being treated under intensive care, the baby was released from the hospital and handed over to the Child Welfare Committee, Lohit District. Since the said district lacks Specialised Adoption Agency (SAA) and at that time, the country was at the state of lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic, the district Child Welfare Committee (CWC in short) had decided to give the baby to a fit person. On such information being received, the petitioner had approached the CWC for custody of the child. The Committee had however, given the custody of the child to the sister of the petitioner for a period of 3(three) months, ending on 07.07.2020, so as to enquire the identity of the biological parents of the child. However, since such exercise did not culminate into any result, the child was granted to the petitioner by declaring her to be a fit person vide an order dated 10.07.2020 for a period of 2(two) months. While giving custody, verification was made by the District Child Protection Unit, which culminated in a report dated 31.08.2020 indicating that the child had developed an attachment with the petitioner. As the issue regarding grant of final custody of the child was undecided, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 232(AP)/2020, which was disposed of vide an order dated 09.09.2020 with a direction to the Committee to pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner.
Page No.# 4/6 However, on the same day, an order was passed by the Protection Officer, District Child Protection Unit, Tezu for handing over the child. Under those circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs;
"1) to set aside and quash the impugned letter No.CARA-CPGO 1/12/2020-Director/5012 dated 07/10/2010 issued by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (A) Statutory Body Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India, if the impugned order is not set aside, it would deprive the baby her right to be raised in a home, family environment and motherly care, love and affection which are necessary for the overall growth and mental development of the child.
ii) to issue a writ mandamus to the respondents authority not to follow seniority as per Child Adoption Resources and Guidance System (CARINGS) under Central Adoption Resources Authority (CARA) under the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case for the interest of child.
iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to allow the petitioner to adopt baby girl Tushala after following due system process of the Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance (CARING) and allow to adopt under section 3 of JJ Act, 2015 read with section 3 (a) and (b) of Adoption Regulation, 2017 without considering the seniority which is maintained by the CARING in the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
iv) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the under Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to process necessary formalities under law for adoption of child from Specialized Adoption Agency (SAA) Roing, Lower Dibang Valley where the petitioner has registration Herself as prospective Adoption Parent (PAP).
Page No.# 5/6
v) Pass Such Order/other as may be Deemed fit and proper in the fact and Circumstances of the case".
4. Shri S. Mow, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a fit person and the action of the respondent authorities directing her to hand over the child is without any due application of mind. He has emphasized that in the meantime, sufficient time has lapsed and all this time, the child is with the petitioner.
5. Shri M. Kato, learned DSGI has, however, submitted that the action taken by the respondent authorities is strictly in accordance with law and the prayer of the petitioner is not backed by any provision of law. He has submitted that child can be given for adoption only to a fit person and there are persons above the petitioner in the chronological list.
6. Shri S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate has defended the impugned action and has endorsed the submissions of the learned DSGI.
7. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the matter is placed before this Court including the relevant statute has been carefully perused.
8. While the petitioner has tried to make out a case for interference of the impugned action, the same has been defended by the learned counsel for the respondents. Without going into the niceties of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting parties, the aspect that in the meantime, more than 6(six) years have elapsed since the date Page No.# 6/6 of handing over the child to the petitioner cannot be overlooked. After all, it is the welfare and betterment of the child in question which is of paramount importance and also the objective of the statute holding the field.
9. In view of the above, as an exceptional circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that no further action is required to be taken by the authorities for taking back the custody of the child from the petitioner.
10. This Court clarifies that the present order has been passed in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution and shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case.
11. The writ petition stands allowed in the manner indicated above.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant