India’s adoption laws are designed to ensure transparency and fairness. However, when it comes to emotions, attachment, and justice, do these legal processes always serve the best interests of the child? The case of baby “Sita” from Bareilly raises this critical question.

The Miraculous Rescue of Baby Sita

In October 2019, a shocking incident came to light when a newborn baby girl was found buried alive in an earthen pot in a cremation ground in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. She was discovered by Hitesh Kumar Sirohi, who had come to bury his deceased daughter. Miraculously, the baby survived, and she was rushed to the hospital in critical condition.

Former Uttar Pradesh MLA Rajesh Mishra (Pappu Bhartoul) played a crucial role in saving the child. He not only ensured her medical care but also initiated the adoption process to make her a part of his family through his nephew.

Bureaucracy vs. Sensitivity in Adoption

India’s adoption system is governed by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), which is responsible for facilitating legal adoptions. However, allegations surfaced that due to technical glitches on the CARA website, baby Sita’s details were not made available to Indian adopters. Instead, the case was processed for inter-country adoption, and by March 2022, a Christian couple from Malta (Mikel Camilleri and his wife) completed the adoption process.

Rajesh Mishra called it a “deep conspiracy” and escalated the matter to the central government. Following this controversy, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) ordered an investigation, and the Home Ministry introduced new rules making district magistrate approval mandatory before any adoption is finalized.

The Legal Battle: Supreme Court and Beyond

To prevent baby Sita’s adoption by a foreign couple, Rajesh Mishra fought a legal battle up to the Supreme Court. He argued that he and his family were fully capable of raising the child. However, the court ultimately ruled in favor of the adoption process, upholding the legality of the international adoption system.

The case was later taken to the Delhi High Court, where a bench led by Justice Yashwant Varma reviewed the proceedings. The court concluded that since the adoption process had already been completed, there was no legal ground to overturn the decision.

Why Was Baby Sita Sent to Malta?

• Legal Framework: According to Indian law, if a biological parent does not claim a child within three months, the child is considered eligible for adoption. In many cases, foreign adoptions are prioritized due to a lack of immediate Indian applicants.
• Procedural Constraints: The courts ruled that the foreign couple had met all legal and procedural requirements, leaving no room for reconsideration.
• Lack of Judicial Sensitivity?: Critics argue that the court failed to consider the emotional bond Rajesh Mishra had developed with the child, raising the question of whether legal procedures should override human compassion.

The Controversy Around Foreign Adoptions

Malta, with a population of just 500,000, has adopted over 35,000 Indian children to date. This staggering figure raises concerns over whether Indian children are deliberately being placed for foreign adoption. Several reports suggest that Indian adoptive parents face unnecessary bureaucratic delays, possibly favoring foreign adopters.

This situation has led to speculation about whether India’s adoption system is prioritizing international families over Indian citizens, thereby neglecting the emotional and cultural welfare of the children.

Conclusion: Legal Process vs. Human Compassion

Baby Sita’s case highlights the delicate balance between law, compassion, and justice. While adoption laws are essential for transparency, should they completely disregard emotional and social factors?

Despite Rajesh Mishra’s dedicated fight, he lost to bureaucratic hurdles. If an Indian family was willing and capable of providing a loving home, was sending the child abroad truly justified?

This case leaves us with a critical question: Does justice lie solely in legal technicalities, or should it also consider human emotions and ethical responsibilities?