Calcutta: In a thought-provoking case at the High Court of Calcutta, a person adopted by Swiss parents sought information about their biological lineage. Born to an unmarried woman in 1988, the individual relinquished for adoption now sought to uncover their origins.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, presiding over the case, denied the plea, affirming that while adopted children possess legal and Constitutional rights to seek their roots, this pursuit must not infringe upon the privacy rights of their biological parents, especially if the parent is unmarried.
Acknowledging the inherent need to understand oneself for a dignified life, the Calcutta High Court recognised that the right to discover one’s biological parents aligns with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, extending even to foreigners whose origins trace back to India, as in the present instance.
However, citing Regulation 47(6) of the Adoption Regulation of 2022, the Court emphasised that an adopted child’s right must not violate the privacy of biological parents. In this case, the only known parent was an unmarried mother, with further details unavailable to authorities. Additionally, Regulation 7(20) permits access to surrender deeds but is constrained by Regulation 47(6).
The single judge highlighted the adoption regulation’s strict confidentiality stance regarding parents yet allowed disclosure if parents willingly provided details. While affirming the petitioner’s legal right to seek information about their biological parents, the Court reiterated that this right remains subservient to the privacy rights of the birth mother or parents.
Moreover, the Court underscored the protection of mothers compelled to surrender their children due to societal pressures. Subjecting such mothers to potential societal scrutiny could threaten their survival and push them to extreme measures, the Court reasoned.
The Calcutta High Court also emphasised that assuming the willingness of a biological mother, forced into giving up her child for adoption, to face societal scrutiny, even from her child at a later stage, was unwarranted.
The Court held that,
“Thus, the right to privacy and confidentiality of the unwed biological mother who surrendered her child has to be given primacy over the right of the adoptee, which is more on the fringes of his human existence and survival inasmuch as the said right is an add-on to his existence, which is otherwise well-sheltered and protected in the hands of his Swiss adoptive parents with whom he has grown up during all of his 35-36 years of existence on earth.”
To summarise, the case elucidated the delicate balance between an adopted individual’s quest for roots and the protection of biological parents’ right to privacy, particularly for mothers facing societal pressures, reinforcing the need for sensitivity and understanding in such matters.