Adoption Policy in India: Scrutinizing Claims on Challenges and Gaps

The article asserts systemic failures and unaddressed issues in India's child adoption framework, including 'manufactured orphans' and biases against special needs children. This analysis critically examines these claims against official data and expert reports, revealing a more nuanced, albeit chal

2026-06-25

Original article: thewire.in

## Executive Summary The original article, 'The Challenges and Unaddressed Issues of Child Adoption Practices in India' published by The Wire, presents a critical perspective on India's child adoption ecosystem. It highlights issues such as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on child orphanhood, complexities of adoption laws, a growing waiting period for prospective parents versus the availability of adoptable children, challenges in adopting special needs children, instances of child trafficking dubbed 'manufactured orphans,' and the exclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals from adoption. The article primarily relies on anecdotal evidence, select media reports, and a single Lancet study to build its narrative. This CounterWire analysis, however, scrutinizes these claims against a broader spectrum of primary source data from Indian government bodies, international organizations, and dedicated research institutions, revealing a more complex and often more optimistic picture of ongoing reform and established legal frameworks, while also acknowledging persistent challenges.

Fact-Check & Data Analysis -- claims vs primary sources

Claim 1: COVID-19 created a new demographic of 'COVID orphans', with Lancet reporting 1.16 lakh minors orphaned in India between March 2020 and April 2021, and 1.86 lakh losing primary/secondary caregivers.

Verdict: Partial. Evidence: The Lancet study cited indeed projected these figures globally, and specifically estimated 113,400 children losing at least one parent or grandparent caregiver in India. However, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), a statutory body under the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD), reported significantly lower confirmed numbers. As of June 2021, the NCPCR's 'Bal Swaraj' portal identified 3,621 children orphaned due to COVID-19, 26,176 children who lost one parent, and 273 children abandoned, totaling significant but much lower numbers than the Lancet projection [Source: PIB India, Press Release 'NCPCR ensures care of children affected by Covid-19', June 2021]. The discrepancy highlights the difference between epidemiological projections and on-the-ground verified data. While any number of orphaned children is tragic, the lower official figures suggest that the immediate crisis was managed more effectively than implied by the Lancet's broad estimates.

Claim 2: Social media posts seeking adoption of 'COVID orphans' were akin to child trafficking, circumventing legal procedures.

Verdict: Supported. Evidence: Both the NCPCR and the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) issued clear directives and warnings against direct adoption offers via social media. CARA, the nodal body for adoptions in India under the MWCD, repeatedly emphasized that all adoptions must be routed through its established legal framework to prevent child trafficking and ensure due process [Source: CARA Advisory, May 2021; NCPCR 'Bal Swaraj' portal guidelines]. The Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) also initiated campaigns to raise awareness about the illegality and dangers of such direct approaches, clearly stating that such actions could attract penal provisions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [Source: MoD India, MWCD statements during COVID-19]. This indicates a robust legal and institutional response to mitigate risks identified by the article.

Claim 3: There is a wide gap between 29,000 prospective parents and only 2,317 available children, leading to long waiting periods despite the CARINGS system.

Verdict: Supported. Evidence: Data from CARA consistently shows a significant disparity between the number of Prospective Adoptive Parents (PAPs) registered and the children declared legally free for adoption. While the exact figures fluctuate, the trend of a high demand-to-supply ratio persists. As of March 2023, CARA's official statistics indicated over 30,000 PAPs registered in the CARINGS system, with approximately 2,000-2,500 children available for adoption at any given time [Source: CARA Annual Report 2022-23]. This bottleneck is a known challenge in the Indian adoption ecosystem, contributing to extended waiting periods and parental frustration, which CARINGS, while streamlining processes, has not fully resolved due to the limited pool of legally cleared children.

Claim 4: Only 0.87% (261,000) of 30 million abandoned children are under institutionalized care, overlooking many unregistered CCIs.

Verdict: Contradicted/Unverifiable on '30 million abandoned children'. Evidence: The figure of '30 million abandoned children' is highly speculative and lacks credible primary source validation. While there is a significant population of children in need of care and protection, official statistics on 'abandoned' children are difficult to ascertain reliably. The MWCD and NCPCR data focus on children in Child Care Institutions (CCIs) registered under the JJ Act, 2015. As of 2020-21, the number of children residing in CCIs was approximately 2.2-2.3 lakhs [Source: MWCD data, Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1754, March 2021]. The existence of unregistered CCIs is a recognized challenge, with the JJ Act 2015 explicitly mandating registration and imposing penalties for non-compliance, prompting ongoing efforts by state governments to identify and register/shut down such facilities [Source: Juvenile Justice Act, 2015; NCPCR reports on CCI inspections]. While the problem of unofficial care homes is real, the specific numerical claim of '30 million abandoned' and the precise percentage of those in regulated care are not substantiated by primary data.

Claim 5: Between 2017-19, CARA saw an 'unusual upsurge' in children being returned, with 60% being girls and 24% children with special needs.

Verdict: Partial. Evidence: Data from CARA indeed indicates that a certain percentage of adoptions result in 'disruption' (children returned), and the vulnerability of girls and children with special needs in this context is acknowledged. However, the term 'unusual upsurge' is subjective. CARA's RTI replies (as cited by The Times of India, a Tier 4 source, itself citing CARA) did highlight these proportions for specific periods [Source: The Times of India, Aug 2019, citing CARA RTI]. CARA reports also demonstrate efforts to address this through enhanced counselling, post-adoption support, and more rigorous matching processes [Source: CARA Annual Reports]. While returns are a concern, CARA's data also shows the overall percentage of disruptions to be relatively low compared to the total number of adoptions annually (typically around 1-3%), indicating it is a known issue being addressed rather than an 'upsurge' in a crisis sense. The specific figures for girls and children with special needs returned are indeed concerning and often higher than their representation in the overall adopted population.

Claim 6: Domestic adoptions of children with special needs are dwindling, while inter-country adoptions of such children are rising, pointing to cultural aversion in India.

Verdict: Supported. Evidence: CARA data consistently shows a lower preference among Indian PAPs for children with special needs, resulting in a higher proportion of these children being referred for inter-country adoption. For instance, in the 2018-19 period, only 40 children with disabilities were adopted domestically, representing a small fraction of total adoptions [Source: CARA data via Lok Sabha response]. Subsequent CARA reports continue to highlight the challenge of finding domestic adoptive homes for children with severe medical conditions or older ages, leading to their placement in the Immediate Placement category, often making them available for international adoption [Source: CARA 'Annual Publication 2020-21']. This trend is a recognized policy challenge that CARA has explicitly sought to address through awareness campaigns and incentives for adopting children with special needs, acknowledging the sociological factor.

Claim 7: Instances of 'baby-selling rackets' and 'manufactured orphans' are becoming increasingly common, exemplified by the Ranchi Missionaries of Charity case.

Verdict: Supported. Evidence: The Ranchi Missionaries of Charity case (2018) was a high-profile incident that indeed exposed illegal practices within a supposedly reputable institution, leading to investigations and arrests [Source: Reuters, July 2018; Firstpost, July 2018]. Furthermore, other reports from state police and the CBI have periodically uncovered illegal 'baby-selling' rings, often involving exploitation of unwed mothers or impoverished families [Source: Reuters, December 2016, on Maharashtra cases; various Indian media reports on state-level busts]. CARA and the MWCD have themselves acknowledged the vulnerability to such rackets, particularly for children not within the formal system, and have issued alerts and guidelines to state governments to strengthen monitoring and vigilance [Source: CARA statements on combating illegal adoptions; MWCD directives]. While 'increasingly common' might be an overstatement without specific trend data, the existence and periodic exposure of such illicit networks are undeniable facts in India.

Claim 8: LGBTQI+ persons are obstructed from becoming parents due to the invalidity of their relationships/marriages under Indian law and the 'Indian family unit concept'.

Verdict: Supported. Evidence: Historically, Indian adoption laws, primarily the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) 1956 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, have generally envisioned adoption by single individuals or married heterosexual couples. The government's stance in court, as cited by The Leaflet, explicitly asserted that LGBTQI+ relationships could not be equated to the 'Indian family unit concept' for legal recognition, including marital rights that would facilitate joint adoption by same-sex couples [Source: The Leaflet, Feb 2021, reporting on Union government's affidavit in Delhi HC]. While single individuals, irrespective of their sexual orientation, can adopt, the inability for same-sex couples to jointly adopt due to the lack of legal recognition for their partnerships remains a significant barrier, as confirmed by ongoing legal challenges and government positions.

## Bias & Methodology Critique The article adopts a critical and somewhat alarmist tone, frequently using phrases like 'ruptured families,' 'worst affected,' 'unusual upsurge,' and 'increasingly common,' which can amplify readers' perceptions of crisis without always providing balanced statistical context. While it does cite a Lancet study and an RTI response, its reliance on The Times of India and Hindustan Times (Tier 4 media) to relay CARA data, rather than directly citing CARA's official reports or government releases (Tier 3), introduces an interpretive filter. The use of 'The Quint' (Tier 4 media) for statistics on children in institutional care further dilutes the directness of data traceability. The article lacks explicit reference to CARA's comprehensive annual reports, policy documents, or specific guidelines, which would offer a more robust understanding of the regulatory framework and ongoing governmental efforts.

The methodology leans towards highlighting challenges without sufficiently detailing the robust, albeit imperfect, legal and institutional mechanisms in place, such as CARA's extensive counseling services, post-adoption support, and inter-state and inter-country adoption protocols. There is an overemphasis on negative anecdotes, such as the Missionaries of Charity scandal, without contextualizing it within the overall operational scale of Indian adoption agencies or governmental oversight responses. The piece also largely omits insights from child welfare experts, social workers, or legal practitioners specializing in adoption, which could provide a more grounded perspective on the ground realities and ongoing reforms. The article's focus remains largely 'problem-centric' rather than 'solution-oriented' or 'reform-acknowledging'.

## Alternative Perspectives & Context While the article rightly identifies several challenges, it underplays the significant strides made by India in formalizing its adoption system. The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, along with the regulations framed by CARA, provides one of the most comprehensive legal frameworks globally for child protection and adoption. This framework prioritizes the 'best interests of the child' and aims to prevent illegal adoptions. The CARINGS platform, despite its noted limitations, has significantly increased transparency and accountability in the adoption process, moving away from fragmented, opaque systems that were more prone to corruption [Source: IDSA, 'Child Adoption in India: Issues and Challenges', 2016 - predates full implementation but highlights goals; CARA reports on CARINGS benefits].

Regarding the demand-supply gap, a major contributing factor, often unaddressed in such critiques, is the 'adoptability' status of children. Many children in CCIs are not legally free for adoption due to parental ties (even if parents are incarcerated or poor), or documentation issues. The focus remains on family reunification first, and adoption is a last resort. This legal stringency, while protective, inherently limits the pool of 'adoptable' children. Moreover, many children in CCIs are older, have special needs, or are part of sibling groups, which PAPs often demonstrate a lower preference for, exacerbating the 'availability' problem for healthy, young children [Source: CARA Annual Reports; NCPCR studies on CCI populations].

On the issue of perceived 'cultural aversion' to children with special needs, while true to an extent, CARA and various NGOs are actively working to change perceptions through awareness campaigns, counseling, and incentives (e.g., preference in waiting lists for PAPs willing to adopt special needs children). The government has also revised guidelines to make it easier for single parents and those with relatively lower incomes to adopt, broadening the pool of potential adoptive families [Source: MWCD Policy Circulars; CARA website, 'Adoption of Children with Special Needs'].

The article's critique on LGBTQ+ rights is valid from a human rights perspective. However, it's crucial to acknowledge the evolving legal landscape in India. While same-sex marriage is not yet formally recognized, the Supreme Court has made significant pro-LGBTQ+ pronouncements, such as decriminalizing homosexuality. The ongoing legal challenges regarding same-sex marriage may eventually open avenues for joint adoption by same-sex couples. Meanwhile, single individuals from the LGBTQ+ community are legally permitted to adopt, a nuance often missed in broad critiques [Source: Supreme Court of India judgments (Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, 2018); ongoing cases on same-sex marriage].

## Conclusion & Assessment The Wire article provides a useful, albeit somewhat one-sided, overview of the complexities within India's child adoption system. It accurately highlights significant challenges such as the persistent demand-supply imbalance, the vulnerability of children to illegal adoption rackets, and the socio-legal hurdles faced by LGBTQ+ individuals. The article's core assertion that the system needs to transition from a parent-centric to a child-centric approach resonates with the stated goals of organizations like CARA and NCPCR.

However, the analysis suffers from a selective use of data, often relying on secondary media reports rather than direct governmental or institutional sources. This methodological weakness leads to an overemphasis on negative trends without adequately acknowledging the robust legal framework in place, the ongoing reform efforts, and the inherent complexities of child welfare that often limit the availability of children for adoption (e.g., non-orphaned children in CCIs). The numerical claim of '30 million abandoned children' is unsubstantiated and risks distorting the scale of particular problems.

In conclusion, while the article serves to raise awareness about critical issues, its overall assessment lacks the necessary nuance and comprehensive data-driven context to present a fully balanced picture. India's adoption system, while definitely facing challenges, is also characterized by a robust regulatory body (CARA), progressive child protection legislation (JJ Act 2015), and continuous efforts towards improvement, which the article largely overlooks. Future analyses would benefit from a more direct engagement with official government data, CARA's policy documents, and expert opinions from child welfare professionals operating within the system.