(1.) The petitioner claims to be illiterate. She is unmarried. But, due to unfortunate circumstances, she became pregnant from her lover. She realises that she may not be in a position to bring up the child and so she desires to surrender the child to a recognised adoption placement agency, so that the child could be rehabilitated through adoption or foster care. She approached certain adoption placement agencies. But, she has been told that she will have to approach the Child Welfare Committee constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "JJ Act"} and the Rules framed thereunder. Essentially, her grievance arises from the operation of Rule 33(4) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 {for short "the Central Rules"}, which contemplates a deed of surrender, to be executed in a prescribed form, on a non-judicial stamp paper, in the presence of the Committee.
(2.) It is her case, that the said statutory prescription, as contained in the aforementioned Rule 33(4) of the Central Rules is inapplicable in the State of Kerala. Further, the Rule is unconstitutional, as it also violates the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reference is made in this regard to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Kanth Pandey v. Union of India, 1984 AIR(SC) 469 and the subsequent judgments on the same point by the Supreme Court, essentially clarifying or modifying, as the case may be, the directions issued in Laxmikanth Pandey's case. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a declaration that Rule 33(4) the Central Rules to be void, illegal and unconstitutional. She further seeks an appropriate direction to the respondents not to insist on her personal appearance before the Child Welfare Committee, for the execution of a document of surrender.
(3.) The Union Government and the State Government are respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition. The Adoption Committee and the Indian Council of Social Welfare are respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition.