FABIAN RICKLIN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Swiss citizen. He was adopted from India by his Swiss parents in the year 1988. The petitioner alleges that after coming of age, he commenced a search for his roots. It is alleged that his attempts to find out his biological parents and their whereabouts were met with resistance by the respondent no. 5, which was the Specialized Adoption Agency through which the petitioner was given in adoption. Hence, the petitioner has taken out the present writ petition through his constituted attorney, who according to the petitioner is an accomplished social worker in the field of adoption and root search.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it was the bounden duty of the respondent-Authorities, in particular the respondent no. 5-Agency, to preserve the records of the adoption, in particular the relinquishment deed executed by the biological mother of the petitioner. Learned counsel places reliance on Lakshmi Kant Pandey Vs. Union of India, reported at (1984) 2 SCC 244, which is a landmark judgment governing the field of adoption, particularly inter-country adoption. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court categorically directed the recognized adoption agencies to maintain the records of the adoption. However, the respondent no. 5/Agency now pleads that they are not in possession of the deed of relinquishment or even the admission register or child study report which were essential documents for giving the petitioner in adoption.

(3.) There has been a blame-game between respondent no. 5, the Adoption Agency and respondent no. 6, the Scrutinizing Agency with regard to who has custody of the scrutiny report and the relinquishment deed. Being caught in the cross-fire, the petitioner is in doubt as to whether his adoption itself was valid in the eye of law.