Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1518 (CAL)

Sampad Roy v. Union of India

2024-09-06

BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY

body2024
JUDGMENT : Biswaroop Chowdhury, J. This Writ Application is directed against the order/letter dated 24th November, 2023 issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths, Respondent No.2 herein directing the petitioners through their Learned Advocate to submit the adoption deed duly registered before the Sub-Registrar along with Form No.1 and Aadhar copies of Adoptive parents and biological parents for issuance of Birth Certificate with the names of adoptive parents. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order/notice dated 24th November, 2023 marked annexure P-5 to the Writ Petition has come up with the instant writ application. The case of the petitioners may be summed up thus : 1. The petitioner No.1 and 2 are adoptive parents of the ward namely Shanaya Roy and the respondent No.3 and 4 are the natural parents of the said ward. Shanaya Roy at present is residing with the petitioners. The writ petitioners and the respondent No.3 and 4 are all Hindus and they are capable of giving and taking the child in adoption. 2. The petitioner No.1 and 2 being desirous of adopting a child upon coming to know that the respondent No.3 and 4 were blessed with a female child and interested to give adoption the petitioners approached them. Accordingly, on 10th August, 2023 in the morning hours ceremony of giving and taking adoption was duly performed at Radha Krishna Temple, Junglighat, Port Blair which is called as ‘Deethak Vidhi’ in the presence of relatives and friends of both the partner. Thereafter, adoption deed was signed by the writ petitioners and the present respondent No. 3 and 4 on the same day which was notarized by the Notary Public. 3. In order to have necessary incorporation with regard to the names of the petitioner No.1 and 2 in the birth certificate of the ward, an application was filled up by them as adoptive parents. The petitioners requested the department repeatedly to accept the application and to consider it in accordance with law but the department did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioners. 4. The petitioners requested the department repeatedly to accept the application and to consider it in accordance with law but the department did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioners. 4. The petitioners being aggrieved by the acts of the department in not receiving the application from the petitioners issued a legal notice through their Learned Advocate upon the Registrar of Birth and Death, Atlanta Point, Port Blair enclosing the application of the petitioners for issuance of birth certificate, calling upon the Registrar respondent No.2 herein to dispose the said application in accordance with law. 5. The respondent No.2 by letter dated 24th November, 2023 replied to the legal notice issued by the Learned Advocate for the petitioners and requested the Learned Advocate to the ask the petitioners to submit adoption deed duly registered before the Sub-Registrar along with Form No.1 and Aadhar copies of Adoptive parents and biological parents for issuance of Birth Certificate with the names of adoptive parents. 6. The respondent No.2 relied upon a circular of the Government of India dated 15th May, 2015 where the Government of India observed that adoption deed ie. Document registered under any law signed by both the parties would be sufficient for issuance of birth certificate. The petitioners being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the circular dated 15th May, 2015 issued by the respondent No.1 providing registration of adoption deed for Hindus and letter dated 24.11.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 directing the writ petitioners to register the adoption deed has come up with this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the contention of the petitioners that the circular dated 15th May, 2015 whereby the respondent No.1 introduced registration of adoption deed for Hindus and letter dated 24.11.2023 whereby the respondent No.2 asked the writ petitioners to register the adoption deed is bad both in law and facts. It is further contended that the respondent authorities failed to consider that adoption deed is a deed and the same is not compulsorily registrable document and therefore the Authorities are not supposed to demand registration of adoption deed. It is also contended that the authorities are supposed to demand only such requirement which is postulated under a provision of law and they cannot force any individual to act in a particular manner which is not prescribed by law. It is also contended that the authorities are supposed to demand only such requirement which is postulated under a provision of law and they cannot force any individual to act in a particular manner which is not prescribed by law. Pursuant to the filing of the writ application, notice was issued upon the respondents. Respondent No. 3 and 4 did not appear in the case but respondents No. 1 and 2 appeared and contested the case. Respondent No.2 also filed affidavit-in-opposition to the Writ Petition. The respondent No.2 in the affidavit-in-opposition has made the following contention: i) The instant petition is not maintainable. ii) In the writ petition adoption deed notarized by the Notary Public is sought to be considered for changing the names of the adoptive parents in the birth certificate of the child. iii) The clarification provided in this matter by the MOHA GOI New Delhi vide their letter No. 1- 7/2011-VS-CRS dated 15-05-2015(F/A) for making /changing entries in the birth record of children taken on adoption wherein it is clearly mentioned that in case of non-institutional adoptions which took place within relations or acquaintances, registered adoption deed duly registered by Sub Registrar is required for Registration of Births and Deaths for incorporating the names of adoptive parents. iv) The Adoption Regulations 2022 under Schedule XXXV, verification certificate is required in case of adoption concluded under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956. v) In view of the procedure laid down by the RGI, MOHA, GOI New Delhi vide Letter No. 1-7/2011-VS- CRS dated 15-05-2015 and schedule XXXV of the Adoption Regulation, 2022 issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development the petitioner was advised to produce the registered adoption deed along with other documents for making correction/changes in the birth record of the adopted child. vi) The Joint Director (CRS) GOIMHA, O/o the Registrar General of India vide Circular date 03.11.2023 has made a clarification on making / changing entries in birth record of children taken on adoption. vi) The Joint Director (CRS) GOIMHA, O/o the Registrar General of India vide Circular date 03.11.2023 has made a clarification on making / changing entries in birth record of children taken on adoption. As per Adoption Regulations, 2022 in cases of institutional adoptions through specialized agency and also in case of relative /step adoption Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (Amended in 2021) the concerned Registrar shall register or make necessary changes in the birth record of adopted child, incorporating the names of adoptive parents as parents and date of birth of the child as mentioned in adoption order issued by the District Magistrate. The writ petitioners filed reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No.2. The writ petitioners have stated that the circular dated 03.11.2023 has no manner application in the instant case because the child was born prior to that ie. on 08.08.2023. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned Advocates for the respondent No. 1 and 2. Perused the petition filed, materials on record and written notes of arguments. Smt. Anjili Nag, Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that adoption took place under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956, and neither Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 nor the Registration Act 1908 postulate compulsory registration of adoption deed. Even under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969, adoption deed is not required to registered. Learned Advocate further submits that Registration of a document is not a general rule, and whether the same is mandatory/optional depends upon the provisions of the respective Act. Registration would be required only if the provision is made by the Legislature through enactment of Law. By executive instructions the authorities cannot demand registration of a deed which is not required to be registered under the respective Law. Learned Advocate while referring to the stand taken by the respondent authorities submits that the said authorities failed to consider that as per Section 56 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 the provisions of the said Act is not applicable to the adoption of children made under provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. Thus, neither Juvenile Justice Act nor CARA Guidelines framed under Juvenile Justice Act can be applied in the case of adoption under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Thus, neither Juvenile Justice Act nor CARA Guidelines framed under Juvenile Justice Act can be applied in the case of adoption under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Learned Advocate submits that it is the duty of the Registrar of Births and Deaths to register the birth and death in accordance with the provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969. As per Section 8 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 certain duties are specified upon persons with regard to information to be provided by them regarding birth and death. One of such person is the hospital/health centre/maternity or nursing home etc. Learned Advocate further submits that it is the duty of the Registering Authority under Section 11 to write in the register about the information of birth and death. Thereafter extract of such registration is required to be given to the informant. In this case the hospital duly informed the Registrar of Births and Deaths about the details of the child including the names of adoptive father and mother. The Registrar is mandated under the provisions enshrined in Section 8 to 12 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 to provide extract of registration. In the instant case the Registrar did not provide the extract of registration which is nothing but the Birth Certificate of the child to the petitioners herein. Learned Advocate submits that the child has now attained the age of one year and all process of procurement of identity cards needs to be initiated as soon as possible. Relegating the parties to another Court would further delay the process. Future of the child is presently at stake due to the reason of ambiguity created by the authorities. Instead of incorporating compulsory registration of adoption deed in the Act itself, the authorities by executing instructions wanted to make such registration mandatory which is not permissible in Law. Learned Advocate submits that her client is ready and willing to withdraw prayer of the writ application in case the Court exercises inherent jurisdiction for the welfare of the child and direct the authorities to issue birth certificate to the petitioners incorporating the name of the adoptive parents as a special case. Mr. Tulsi Lall, Learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1 submits that Registration of Birth and Death is to be done by Registering Authority upon compliance of the circular issued by the Respondent No.1. Mr. Tulsi Lall, Learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1 submits that Registration of Birth and Death is to be done by Registering Authority upon compliance of the circular issued by the Respondent No.1. Learned Advocate draws attention to annexure ‘P-7’ of the Writ Application which provides modification to the circular dated 12 th March, 2012 by which instructions were issued on framing the procedure for making / changing entries in birth record of children taken on adoption. Learned Advocate also draws attention to Regulation 40 of Adoption Regulation of 2022 framed by the Ministry of Women and Child Development Union of India in exercise of power conferred under Clause (C) of Section 68 read with Clause (3) of Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 and in supersession of the Adoption Regulations 2017. Learned Advocate submits that as per Regulation 40 the local Registrar notified under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 shall issue birth certificate within five days in favour of an adopted child on an application filed by the specialized Adoption Agency or adoptive parents incorporating the names of the adoptive parents as parents and the date of birth of the child as mentioned in the adoption order issued by the District Magistrate in accordance with circulars issued from time to time by the Registrar General of India. Learned Advocate submits that as per the latest Government Circular production of Registered Adoption Deed is sufficient to issue birth certificate to adoptive parents by the Registrar. Learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2 submits that the Order dated May 15, 2015 issued by respondent No.1 which is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition is in the nature of clarification/directions/instructions issued by the office of the Registrar General Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India. Learned Advocate further submits that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 empowers the Registrar ie. the Respondent No.2 to make correction in the Register of Births and Deaths upon being satisfied and subject to the rules made by the State Government with respect to the condition on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected. the Respondent No.2 to make correction in the Register of Births and Deaths upon being satisfied and subject to the rules made by the State Government with respect to the condition on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected. Learned Advocate also submits that a perusal of the impugned order dated May 15, 2015 will show that by virtue of the same the instructions contained in office letter dated March 12, 2012 as clarified on August 25, 2014 which require submission of adoption deed and adoption order (both) for registration of birth of children taken on adoption and issue of birth certificate to them has been relaxed in case of in country non-institutional adoption taking place within relation or acquaintances to the extent that production of adoption order of Court is no more mandatory and production of adoption deed would be sufficient provided the same is registered. It is submitted by Learned Advocate that order dated 15th May, 2015 or the subsequent order dated November 3, 2023 is not concerned with the question of validity or invalidity of an adoption made in accordance with any personal law much less the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. The said orders are only concerned with the process of issuing a certificate of birth which would become a public document for all times to come. It is further submitted that the instructions issued vide the said order dated 15th May 2015 have stood the test of time and the petitioner has not produced any precedent to show that the said notification has been quashed or set aside or questioned in the last decade. It is also submitted that in the event the petitioners were to succeed in setting aside the said order dated 15th May, 2015 it would result in a reversion to the earlier system which require both production of adoption deed and a Court order which would hardly further the petitioner’s case. Learned Advocate Mr. Jayapal and Mr. D.C. Kabir appointed Amicus Curie have rendered their valuable assistance to this Court. It is submitted by Mr. Kabir that Section 4, 5, 6 and Section 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 lays down the criteria of valid adoption by Hindus. Mr. Learned Advocate Mr. Jayapal and Mr. D.C. Kabir appointed Amicus Curie have rendered their valuable assistance to this Court. It is submitted by Mr. Kabir that Section 4, 5, 6 and Section 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 lays down the criteria of valid adoption by Hindus. Mr. Kabir further submits that Section 11 of the Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 provides conditions of valid adoption which if complied further compliance is not necessary for an adoption to be treated as valid. Mr.Kabir further draws attention to Section 2 (42), 2(52) and 2(60) of Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act and submits that the said sections defines who is an orphan, relative and surrendered child for the purpose of the statute. Learned Advocate also submits that page -14 of the affidavit-in- opposition provides child eligible for adoption applies only in case of adoption from institutions upon obtaining order from competent authority and the same does not apply to adoption under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956, regarding child eligible for adoption. Mr. Kabir submits that the circular relied upon by the respondents on 12.03.2012 is not applicable as that was issued under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 which is already repealed. Mr. Kabir, Learned Advocate relies upon the following Judicial decisions: ABC Vs. The State of New Delhi reported in MANU/SC/0718/2015 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABC observed as follows: “(19) We are greatly perturbed by the fact that the Appellant has not obtained a Birth Certificate for her son who is nearly five years old. This is bound to create problems for the child in the future. In this regard, the Appellant has not sought any relief either before us or before any of the Courts below. It is a misplaced assumption in the law as it is presently perceived that the issuance of a Birth Certificate would be a logical corollary to the Appellant succeeding in her guardianship petition. It may be recalled that owing to curial fiat, it is no longer necessary to state the name of the father in applications seeking admission of children to school, as well as for obtaining a passport for a minor child. However, in both these cases, it may still remain necessary to furnish a Birth Certificate. It may be recalled that owing to curial fiat, it is no longer necessary to state the name of the father in applications seeking admission of children to school, as well as for obtaining a passport for a minor child. However, in both these cases, it may still remain necessary to furnish a Birth Certificate. The law is dynamic and is expected to diligently keep pace with time and the legal conundrums and enigmas it presents. There is no gainsaying that the identity of the mother is never in doubt. Accordingly, we direct that if a single parent/unwed mother applies for the issuance of a Birth Certificate for a child born from her womb, the Authorities concerned may only require her to furnish an affidavit to this effect, and must thereupon issue the Birth Certificate, unless there is a Court direction to the contrary. Trite though it is, yet we emphasise that it is the responsibility of the State to ensure that no citizen suffers any inconvenience or disadvantage merely because the parents fail or neglect to register the birth. Nay, it is the duty of the State to take requisites steps for recording every birth of every citizen. To remove any possible doubt, the direction pertaining to issuance of the Birth Certificate is intendedly not restricted to the circumstances or the parties before us. Upon hearing the Learned Advocates and upon considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that as the matter in issue is whether Registration of Adoption Deed is mandatory to obtain a birth certificate of the adopted child it is necessary to consider the provisions of Section 5 Section 6 and Section 11 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, Section 56 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 and Section 8, 10, 12 and 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969. Section 5 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 provides as follows: “ (1) No adoption shall be made after the commencement of this Act by or to a Hindu except in accordance with the provisions contained in this Chapter, and any adoption made in contravention of the said provisions shall be void. Section 5 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 provides as follows: “ (1) No adoption shall be made after the commencement of this Act by or to a Hindu except in accordance with the provisions contained in this Chapter, and any adoption made in contravention of the said provisions shall be void. (2) An adoption which is void shall neither create any rights in the adoptive family in favour of any person which he or she could not have acquired except by reason of the adoption, nor destroy the rights of any person in the family of his or her birth. Section 6 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 provides as follows: “No adoption shall be valid unless- (i) the person adopting has the capacity, and also the right, to take in adoption; (ii) the person giving in adoption has the capacity to do so; (iii) the person adopted is capable of being taken in adoption; and (iv) the adoption is made in compliance with the other conditions mentioned in this Chapter. Section 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 provides as follows: “In every adoption, the following conditions must be complied with: (i) if any adoption is of a son, the adoptive father or mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a Hindu son, son’s son or son’s son’s son (whether by legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at the time of adoption; (ii) if the adoption is of a daughter the adoptive father or mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a Hindu daughter or son’s daughter (whether by legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at the time of adoption; (iii) if the adoption is by a male and the person to be adopted is a female, the adoptive father is at least twenty-one years older than the person to be adopted; (iv) if the adoption is by a female and the person to be adopted is a male, the adoptive mother is at least twenty-one years older than the person to be adopted: (v) the same child may not be adopted simultaneously by two or more persons; (vi) the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents or guardian concerned or under their authority with intent to transfer the child from the family of its birth or in the case of an abandoned child or a child whose parentage is not known, from the place or family where it has been brought up to the family of its adoption; Provided that the performance of datta homam, shall not be essential to the validity of an adoption. In the case of M. Gurudas and others Vs. Rasaranjan and others reported in 2006(8) SCC P-367 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “To prove valid adoption, it would be necessary to bring on record that there had been an actual giving and taking ceremony. Performance of “datta homam” was imperative, subject to just exceptions. Above all, as noticed hereinbefore, the question would arise as to whether adoption of a daughter was permissible in law. In Mulla’s Principles of Hindu Law, 17th dn., P. 710, it is stated: “488. Performance of “datta homam” was imperative, subject to just exceptions. Above all, as noticed hereinbefore, the question would arise as to whether adoption of a daughter was permissible in law. In Mulla’s Principles of Hindu Law, 17th dn., P. 710, it is stated: “488. Ceremonies relating to adoption.- (1) The ceremonies relating to an adoption are (a) The physical act of giving and receiving, with intent to transfer the boy from one family into another; (b) The data homam, that is, oblations of clarified butter to fire; and (c) Other minor ceremonies, such as putresti jag (sacrifice for male issue). (2) The physical act of giving and receiving is essential to validity of an adoption. As to data homam it is not settled whether its performance is essential to the validity of an adoption in every case. As to the other ceremonies, their performance is not necessary to the validity of an adoption. (3) No religious ceremonies, not even data homam, are necessary in the case of shudras. Nor are religious ceremonies necessary amongst Jains or in the Punjab.” Thus, from the provisions contained in Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 it is clear that to prove valid adoption it is not necessary to show that there is a Registered Adoption Deed, by which adoption was made. Moreover, Section 17 of the Registration Act does not include adoption deed. In the case of Parampal Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. reported in (2013) 3 SCC - P-409 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “14. In this context, it will be worthwhile to note the requirement of registration of an adoption deed. Section 17 of the Registration Act specifically refers to the documents of which registration is compulsory. The deed of adoption is not one of the documents mentioned in Sub–Section 1 of Section 17 which mandatorily requires registration. Sub- Section 3 of Section 17 only refers to the mandatory requirement of registration of an authorization that may be given for adopting a son executed after 01.01.1872 if such authorization was not conferred by a will. Dealing with the said provision relating to authorization it has been held in the decision in Vishwanath Ramji Karole Vs. Rohibai Raji Karole that a deed of adoption as distinguished from authority to adopt does not require registration.” In the case of Mihir Ramesh Vora Vs. Dealing with the said provision relating to authorization it has been held in the decision in Vishwanath Ramji Karole Vs. Rohibai Raji Karole that a deed of adoption as distinguished from authority to adopt does not require registration.” In the case of Mihir Ramesh Vora Vs. V.S Union of India and another reported in 2013 (5) Mh.L.J 827 the Hon’ble Court observed as follows: “ (10) Mr. M.M. Vashi, however, placed reliance upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vishvanath Ramji Karale V. Rathibai Ramji Karale and ors. AIR 1931 Bombay 105, in which it is held that it is the act of adoption and not an adoption deed which confers the status of an adopted son. A perfectly valid adoption can be made without an adoption deed. The relevant observations from this judgement are transcribed herein below for ready reference:- “….. Now admittedly this document was not written in the presence of the Sub-Registrar or by him, and the question then would be whether an adoption deed of this nature requires registration. Under Section 17, Registration Act, adoption deeds in themselves are not compulsorily registrable, but it is contended that by this adoption deed Ramji the adopter created an interest of L 100 or upwards in immovable property and therefore the document would be compulsorily registrable. The answer to that is that it is not the adoption deed which confers the status of an adopted son or any interest in the property of the adoptive father, but the adoption itself which in this case had taken place some days earlier. The answer to that is that it is not the adoption deed which confers the status of an adopted son or any interest in the property of the adoptive father, but the adoption itself which in this case had taken place some days earlier. A perfectly valid adoption can be made without an adoption deed and any status which the adopted son gets by the adoption is due to the proper ceremonies being performed and not to any deed passed as evidence of that adoption.” The circulars relied upon by the respondents issued from time to time was pursuant to discussion with Central Adoption Resource Authority and in compliance of the notification dated 23rd September 2022 issued by Ministry of Women and Child Development in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (C) of Section 68 read with Clause (3) of Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 (2 of 2016) but the fact that Section 56(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 excludes adoption of children made under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956. (78 of 1956), the circulars and notifications issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development Government of India cannot be made applicable in the instant adoption matter as it is an adoption under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. The respondent authorities are unable to show any provision either under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956, or under Registration Act 1908, that Adoption Deed is compulsorily required to be registered. Moreover, it is held in different Judicial pronouncements as mentioned above that for valid adoption there need not be a registered adoption deed and Section 56(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 excludes adoption under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. A person cannot be compelled to perform an act which he is not bound to do under a statute. The object of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 is to provide for the regulation of registration of births and death and for matters connected therewith. Section 10 of the said Act provides the duty of certain persons to notify birth and death and Section 8 and 9 provides the obligation of persons to inform the Register giving particulars of birth and death. Section 10 of the said Act provides the duty of certain persons to notify birth and death and Section 8 and 9 provides the obligation of persons to inform the Register giving particulars of birth and death. Section 12 imposes obligation upon the Registrar when registration of birth and death is complete to give free of charge to the person who gives information under Section 8 or Section 9 an extract of the prescribed particulars under his hand from the register relating to such birth or death. Thus, it is clear from Section 8, 9 and 11 that the function of the Registrar is to record birth and death upon receipt of information and upon being satisfied of the genuineness. In the case of any doubt regarding genuineness or in the event any objection is made before the Registrar, the Registrar may be required to hear the objector and the informant. In the instant matter no objection is raised with regard to issuance of birth certificate to the petitioners of their adopted child after incorporating the necessary particulars provided in Discharge/ Referral slip and the Birth Report for Adopted Child as provided in FORM NO-1-A annexed to P-3 of the Writ Application purported to be signed by the petitioners and G.B. Pant hospital authority. The respondent No.2 by not issuing the birth certificate to the petitioners of their adopted child and by insisting on production of Registered Adoption Deed has erred in law. As it has been held in different Judicial Pronouncements that the welfare of the child is of prime importance in the cases relating to adoption or custody, a valuable document like birth certificate should not be withheld without cogent reasons as provided under statute. Birth certificate of a child is required for Ration Card, Aadhar Card and for admission in School. Thus, there should not be any delay in this regard. Hence, the letter dated 24th November, 2023 issued by the Respondent No.2 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same should be set aside. As the Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted at the very outset that she is not pressing prayer (a) of the writ application, no order is required to be passed on that prayer, however the matter is left to the respondent No. 1 with regard to modification and variation of the circulars relied upon regarding registration of adoption deed. As the Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted at the very outset that she is not pressing prayer (a) of the writ application, no order is required to be passed on that prayer, however the matter is left to the respondent No. 1 with regard to modification and variation of the circulars relied upon regarding registration of adoption deed. The order passed in this writ petition is to be confined with regard to the petitioners and may not be used as a precedent. In the facts and circumstances this writ application stands allowed letter dated 24th November, 2023 issued by the Respondent No. 2 and marked P-5 to the Writ Application, is hereby set aside. The respondent No. 2 is directed to issue birth certificate to the petitioners of their adopted child containing necessary particulars as furnished by G.B. Pant hospital without insisting on registered adoption deed. The petitioners also shall furnish true copy of the adoption deed duly attested their Aadhar Cards and Aadhar Card of biological parents and FORM No.-1 if not already furnished. It is however made clear that in the event the respondent authority is of doubt regarding information furnished the said Respondent may hear the hospital authority and the petitioners and obtain clarification. The entire process is to be completed by respondent No.2 within 6 weeks from the date of communication of this order. WPA No. 1030 of 2023 is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent Xerox certified copy this judgement be supplied to the Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities.