 "Supreme Court (Photo: Wikipedia)")
Indian law on adoption allows an individual to adopt a child irrespective of marital status, the Supreme Court said.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court resumed hearing the marriage equality case for legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India.
The five-judge constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud noted that adoption is the norm in many situations, and there is no bar on adoption by same-sex couples, as the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) statement recognises an individual's right to adopt.
Earlier, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) had moved the Supreme Court against allowing the adoption of children by such couples as it is against their welfare and interest.
The NCPCR submitted that it had been held in several judgements that adopting a child is not a fundamental right and added that the child's interest is paramount while deciding on adoption.
Also Read
The CJI asserted that even a single individual can adopt a child despite being in a single-sex relationship. "You can adopt even if you are capable of biological birth. There is no compulsion to have biological birth," the CJI said.
The bench further said that the law recognises that there are many situations apart from an "ideal family" having their own biological children.
According to the CARA, the eligibility criteria for any prospective adoptive parent, irrespective of their marital status and whether or not they have a biological son or daughter, can adopt a child. However, for a married couple, both spouses' consent is required for adoption. And a single female can adopt a child of any gender. But a single male shall not be eligible to adopt a girl child.
Earlier on Tuesday, the apex court said it has to be alive to the fact that the concept of marriage has evolved and must accept the basic proposition that marriage itself is entitled to constitutional protection as it is not just a matter of statutory recognition.
Calling the Indian Constitution a "tradition breaker", the bench observed that it would be rather "far-fetched" to argue that there is no right to marry under the Constitution
