Calcutta HC Quashes CWC Kolkata Order Declaring Infant Abandoned, Sets Aside Adoption; DNA-Confirmed Mother Denied Any Hearing

The Calcutta High Court set aside a Child Welfare Committee order declaring a newborn abandoned and his parents incapacitated, finding the committee bypassed due process and gave the biological mother no hearing before proceeding to adoption.

Justice Krishna Rao, sitting singly at the High Court at Calcutta, on 6 August 2026 quashed the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Kolkata's order dated 18 November 2024, which had declared infant RIBHU an abandoned child, declared his biological parents incapacitated, and directed the Specialised Adoption Agency (SAA) to proceed with the Legally Free for Adoption (LFA) process. The court found that the CWC conducted no inquiry, issued no notice to the biological mother Asmita Poddar @ Payel Poddar or the biological father Ritam Das, and ignored a DNA report — obtained at its own request — that confirmed the couple as the child's parents. All actions taken in pursuance of the 18 November 2024 order, including the adoption itself, were set aside. The adoptive parents were directed to surrender the child to CWC Kolkata by 7 August 2026.

How the Infant Came to Be in State Custody

On 23 March 2024, a newborn male infant was found in a narrow lane between two walls adjacent to a building on Simla Road, Manicktala, Kolkata, with multiple cuts and bruises. Local residents, along with one Ritam Das who was claiming to be the biological father, brought the child to Manicktala Police Station. The police immediately took the infant to R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, where he was admitted in serious condition, requiring treatment across general surgery, neurosurgery, paediatric surgery, and ENT departments, and was placed on ventilation.

While the child was hospitalised, Asmita Poddar reached the hospital and claimed to be the biological mother. She told police she had married Ritam Das without their families' consent and had delivered the child at her residence. Attending doctors, however, declined to record the names of the parents in hospital records to avoid complications. The matter was reported to the CWC, Kolkata. After the child was discharged on 9 April 2024, the CWC placed him in the Indian Society for Rehabilitation of Children (ISRC), a Specialised Adoption Agency, under the name RIBHU, declaring him an abandoned child.

Asmita Poddar made representations to Manicktala Police Station and the hospital, asking for the child to be returned. Getting no relief, she filed W.P.A. No. 12471 of 2024 before this court. On 3 June 2024, the court directed the CWC to ascertain whether the petitioner and Ritam Das were the biological parents and, if parentage was not in dispute, to hand over the child. Separately, on 9 June 2024, the CWC directed the police by email to conduct a DNA test. By 27 June 2024, the DNA report confirmed that Asmita Poddar and Ritam Das were the biological parents.

The Criminal Case and the First Court Disposal

Before the DNA results were placed before the court, the Chairperson of the CWC, Kolkata, lodged a written complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Manicktala Police Station on 13 June 2024. The complaint stated that the petitioner had visited the CWC with her father and claimed the child but could not explain how the infant came to be in a drain with cuts and bruises. On the basis of that complaint, police registered FIR No. 83 of 2024 under Section 308/34 of the IPC against the petitioner and others.

On 3 July 2024, the court disposed of W.P.A. No. 12471 of 2024. It declined to direct the return of the child at that stage, observing that the mother was named as an accused, her hospital discharge papers were suspected to have been tampered with, and proof of maternity alone would not entitle her to custody. The court directed the CWC to decide the prayer for return of the child in accordance with law, at the appropriate stage.

Police investigation eventually established that the infant had been dropped into the lane by the petitioner's mother, Lakshmi Poddar, in the petitioner's absence on the evening of 23 March 2024. Lakshmi Poddar died on 4 November 2024. The police final report cleared Asmita Poddar of any offence and recorded the case as established against Lakshmi Poddar alone, who could not be charge-sheeted as she had died.

The CWC's November 2024 Order and What It Overlooked

On 18 November 2024, the CWC passed the impugned order. It recorded that an unknown couple had appeared before a court claiming parentage, that DNA results were awaited, and that the appealed parents were considered incapacitated because the newborn had been dropped in a drain by them. It directed the SAA to proceed with the LFA process.

Justice Krishna Rao found multiple factual errors in this order. The DNA report had in fact been received on 27 June 2024 — nearly five months before the CWC's order. The CWC's own email of 9 June 2024 had initiated the DNA testing. The impugned order's recording that DNA results were still awaited was, as the petitioner's counsel Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee submitted, contrary to the record.

The CWC also stated that no claimant had approached the SAA and that no one had responded to newspaper notices calling for claims and objections. The court noted that the CWC had never issued direct notice to Asmita Poddar or Ritam Das, even though both had been approaching the CWC, the police, and the hospital since March 2024, and even though a writ petition concerning the child had been pending in this court.

When the petitioner had personally approached the CWC with her father to claim the child, the Chairperson's response was to file a criminal complaint against her. No inquiry into the petitioner's suitability as a parent was conducted. No social investigation report was called for. The committee examined neither the petitioner nor Ritam Das.

The Court's Analysis of the Statutory Framework

Justice Krishna Rao examined the requirements of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in detail.

Section 2(1) of the Act defines an “abandoned child” as one deserted by biological or adoptive parents or guardians and declared abandoned by the Committee after due inquiry. The court found that no such inquiry had taken place. The CWC produced no record of any inquiry. Newspaper publication alone did not satisfy the requirement, particularly when the biological parents were known to the committee and had been actively claiming the child.

On the declaration of the parents as incapacitated, the court referred to Section 2(14)(v), which defines a child in need of care and protection as one whose parent or guardian is found unfit or incapacitated by the committee. The court held that to reach such a finding, the committee must examine the parents' physical and mental health, history of neglect or abuse, financial stability, environment, and criminal record. None of this was done. The committee's sole basis was that the child had been found with injuries — injuries that the police investigation traced to a third person, not the petitioner.

Section 38 of the Act sets out the procedure for declaring a child legally free for adoption. It requires the committee to make all efforts to trace the parents or guardians first. Where parents are known and are actively claiming the child, a newspaper publication does not discharge that duty. The court also drew attention to the second proviso to Section 38(1), which expressly prohibits registration of an FIR against a biological parent in the process of inquiry relating to an abandoned or surrendered child under the Act. In this case, the CWC's own complaint triggered the FIR against the biological mother, inverting the statutory process entirely.

Section 36(2) of the Act mandates a social investigation before key determinations are made. No social investigation report was obtained here.

The court took note of the judgments cited by CWC counsel Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, including Temple of Healing v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1590, on the paramountcy of child welfare and the categories of unfit guardians. Justice Krishna Rao accepted the proposition that child welfare is paramount, but held that the committee had not applied any of the relevant criteria to examine whether the biological parents were in fact unfit. The committee had admitted the petitioner's maternity while simultaneously ignoring the police report that exonerated her.

The Adoption Completed Pendente Lite

During the pendency of W.P.A. No. 24620 of 2025, the respondents informed the court that the child had already been given in adoption to the added respondents — the adoptive parents — without waiting for the writ proceedings to conclude. The Director, Child Rights and Trafficking, West Bengal, acting as District Magistrate for adoption purposes, had passed a Final Adoption Order in the adoptive parents' favour after the statutory formalities under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the Adoption Regulations, 2022 were completed.

The court issued notices to the adoptive parents. Despite receiving notice, none appeared on their behalf.

After the hearing concluded on 29 July 2026, CWC counsel prayed for a stay of the judgment. The petitioner's counsel opposed the stay. Justice Krishna Rao refused the stay.

Order

The order dated 18 November 2024 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Kolkata, declaring the child RIBHU as abandoned, declaring the biological parents incapacitated, and directing the SAA to proceed with the LFA process, is set aside and quashed. All actions taken with respect to the custody of the minor child in pursuance of that order are also set aside and quashed.

The adoptive parents are directed to surrender the child to CWC, Kolkata, on or before 7 August 2026. CWC, Kolkata, is directed to place the child with the SAA immediately and to hold the child there until a fresh inquiry is completed.

CWC, Kolkata, is directed to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with law, providing an opportunity of hearing to the biological parents, calling for a report from the investigating agency, and passing an appropriate order within four weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment.

W.P.A. No. 24620 of 2025 is allowed. CAN No. 1 of 2026 is disposed of.