Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya dismissed the request of an individual who approached the Court seeking information about their biological mother, who had placed them for adoption.
The Calcutta High Court, in its ruling on Friday, affirmed that while an adopted child holds a legal and constitutional entitlement to seek their origins, this entitlement does not supersede the privacy rights of their biological parents, especially in the case of an unmarried mother.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, as a single-judge, presided over a case brought by an individual adopted by a Swiss couple from an unmarried woman in 1988. Now an adult, the petitioner came to India with the intent to uncover their origins and locate their biological mother, who had placed them for adoption. However, the authorities declined to disclose the details of the biological mother.
Considering the particulars of the case, the Court remarked that…
“The right to pursue one’s origins is inherently linked to the petitioner’s right to self-awareness and a dignified life, wherein understanding one’s identity is integral. Therefore, the entitlement to ascertain the identity of biological parents aligns with the right to life as stipulated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” stated the single-judge in the order.
The Court emphasized that Article 21 extends to foreigners, and despite the petitioner not residing in India, their roots being traced back to India make the right to life applicable in this case.
However, the judge acknowledged that Regulation 47(6) of the Adoption Regulations of 2022 specifically safeguards the privacy rights of biological parents, ensuring that the rights of an adopted child do not encroach upon those of their biological parents.
In this instance, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner’s sole known parent was their unmarried biological mother during the relevant period. Consequently, the details regarding her were unavailable to the respondent authorities.
Additionally, the single-judge highlighted that as per the Adoption Regulations, stringent confidentiality must be upheld concerning all documents related to biological parents under all circumstances, unless the surrendering parents have explicitly consented to their disclosure. Moreover, access to the surrender deed is granted exclusively to the child.
The Court highlighted that the exception outlined in Regulation 7(20) allowing the child access to the surrender deed is constrained by the limitation set forth in Regulation 47(6), which safeguards the privacy rights of biological parents from infringement by the rights of the adopted child.
Consequently, the Court pointed out that the legal framework emphasizes the confidentiality desired by biological parents, particularly in the case of a single unwed mother. This emphasis supersedes the child’s entitlement to access the surrender deed or conduct a search for their roots.
Therefore, the petitioner unquestionably possesses a legal and constitutional entitlement to seek information about their biological parents. However, this right is contingent upon and secondary to the privacy rights of the adoptee’s biological mother or parent, the Court affirmed.
The inherent right to discover one’s origins undoubtedly resides within human existence, where the pursuit and inquisitiveness stand as fundamental elements of human development and advancement.
However, juxtaposed against this right to unearth one’s origins, the single-judge emphasized that the right to privacy and safeguarding the identity of the biological parents of the adopted child are even more fundamental and elemental. These rights extend to the extent of preserving the very existence of the biological parents, the judge highlighted.
This becomes especially crucial when an unmarried mother relinquishes her child due to immense societal pressures, the Court expressed.
“Exposing the said mother to potential social shame and isolation could deeply threaten her existence, possibly compelling her to take drastic actions,” stated the judgment.
The judge, in the ruling, mentioned that there is no basis to presume that the biological mother, who was compelled to place her child with an agency for adoption, would willingly embrace the prospect of facing societal scrutiny or even encountering her child at a later stage in life.
Advocates Jhuma Sen, Trisha Saha, Arpita De and Dinesh Vishwakarma appeared for the petitioner.
Advocates Pranit Bag, Sourav Chunder, Mandavi Choudhury, Rahul Karmakar, Sounak Mukherjee, Biswabrata Basu Mallick and Parna Roy Choudhury represented the authorities.
