Trafficking Of Children For Illicit Adoption And Surrogacy - Legal Vacuum And Regulatory Failures In India

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Family & Personal Law

Published: 2026-08-23T21:36:14.341634+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:05:14.337+00:00

TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN FOR ILLICIT ADOPTION

AND SURROGACY: LEGAL VACUUM AND REGULATORY

FAILURES IN INDIA

Aman Sonkar, Assistant Professor, Motherhood University, Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttarakhand

ABSTRACT:

The trafficking of children for illicit adoption and surrogacy remains a critical issue in India, revealing a disturbing intersection of legal inadequacies, regulatory failures, and socio-economic vulnerabilities. Despite legislative measures aimed at curbing human trafficking and ensuring ethical adoption and surrogacy practices, India continues to witness alarming cases of child trafficking, where children are exploited for illegal adoptions and commercial surrogacy arrangements. This paper examines the legal framework surrounding child trafficking in India, focusing on its relationship with adoption laws, the regulation of surrogacy, and the enforcement of anti-trafficking measures. It critically analyzes existing gaps in legislation and enforcement mechanisms, exploring how they contribute to the persistence of illicit activities in adoption and surrogacy.

The paper also assesses the role of various stakeholders, including governmental bodies, non-governmental organizations, and the judiciary, in addressing these challenges. By identifying systemic weaknesses, this research calls for comprehensive reforms to strengthen legal protections for children, ensure greater accountability in adoption and surrogacy processes, and provide more robust safeguards against exploitation. Ultimately, it advocates for a more cohesive and coordinated approach to tackling child trafficking and related offenses in India, ensuring that the rights and welfare of children are prioritized. Keywords: Child trafficking, illicit adoption, surrogacy, legal framework, regulatory failures, India, child protection.

I.

Introduction “Child trafficking, a grave violation of human rights”, assumes complex and insidious forms when intertwined with illicit adoption and exploitative surrogacy arrangements. In this context, trafficking refers not only to the illegal procurement and sale of children but also to their placement through unlawful adoption processes or unethical surrogacy networks that often bypass legal safeguards and exploit regulatory loopholes. These practices commodify children, turning them into goods within a black market of parenthood driven by profit, desperation, and lack of oversight. India, with its large population and socio-economic disparities, has emerged as both a source and destination country for such activities.

The demand for children—domestically and internationally—has led to the proliferation of unlicensed adoption agencies, surrogacy clinics operating in legal grey zones, and a parallel underground market for babies. Despite the existence of legal frameworks such as the “Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021”, enforcement remains inconsistent, fragmented, and often reactive. According to the “National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)”, thousands of children go missing annually in India, and many are never traced, raising serious concerns about the possibility of trafficking for adoption and surrogacy purposes. 1 “The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)” has also flagged concerns about illegal adoption rackets and the inadequate functioning of regulatory bodies like the “Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA)”.

2 International bodies such as the “United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)” have emphasized the need for greater transparency and legal coherence in handling cross-border adoption and surrogacy-related trafficking. 3 The issue has also gained media attention in several sting operations revealing 'baby-selling' networks, sometimes involving licensed adoption agencies or fertility clinics. 1 National Crime Records Bureau, “Crime in India 2022: Missing Persons Report”, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, https://ncrb. gov. in/en/crime-india 2National Human Rights Commission, “Annual Report 2021–22”,

NHRC

India, https://nhrc.nic.in/sites/default/files/Annual_Report_2021-2022.pdf

3 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2022”, UNODC,

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/glotip.html

This research aims to critically examine the legal and regulatory framework in India governing child adoption and surrogacy to determine whether it sufficiently prevents trafficking. The study seeks to answer key questions: • How do existing laws address the nexus between child trafficking, illicit adoption, and surrogacy? • Where do regulatory gaps lie, and how do they enable exploitation? What has been the judicial response to such issues? • Finally, what reforms are necessary to create a child-centric, rights-based approach? The paper is structured as follows: Section II explores the nature and operational mechanisms of trafficking for illicit adoption and surrogacy. Section III delves into the domestic and international legal frameworks governing these issues. Section IV analyses judicial trends and case law. Section V discusses implementation and enforcement challenges.

Section VI offers policy recommendations, and Section VII concludes with a summary of findings and the way forward. II.

Understanding the Phenomenon Child trafficking in India has evolved to exploit legal grey areas in both adoption and surrogacy regimes. While the acts of adoption and surrogacy are legitimate when done lawfully, their misuse has facilitated covert markets for the commodification of children. This section explores how illicit adoption and unregulated surrogacy serve as mechanisms of trafficking, and how the two are often interlinked through organized criminal operations.

2.1. Illicit Adoption as a Form of Child Trafficking

Illegal adoption operates through elaborate rackets involving unregistered adoption agencies, forged identity papers, and complicit orphanages. Traffickers often lure or coerce impoverished parents into giving up their children with promises of a better life or by feigning legal formalities. These children are then placed with families, sometimes abroad, in return for hefty sums. Many such operations function under the guise of religious or charitable organizations,

thereby avoiding scrutiny.4 A significant driver of this demand is infertility, particularly among urban middle-class and

elite couples who may find the legal adoption process cumbersome, slow, and invasive.5 The stringent procedural checks under the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) often lead desperate couples to seek faster, illegal alternatives. International adoption networks further complicate the issue, with children trafficked from India being adopted overseas through manipulated documentation and false parental consent.6 These adoption rackets often function across state borders, aided by local officials, lawyers, and sometimes even medical practitioners who provide fake birth certificates and medical records. In several high-profile busts, authorities uncovered adoption rings where children were systematically supplied to prospective parents, often bypassing CARA entirely.7

2.2. Surrogacy and Its Exploitation Risks

Surrogacy in India, “particularly prior to the enactment of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, was largely unregulated, giving rise to a booming commercial surrogacy industry. Surrogacy involves a woman carrying a pregnancy for intended parents, either through her own egg (traditional) or a donor’s egg (gestational)”. 8 In commercial surrogacy, monetary compensation is given, whereas altruistic surrogacy relies on voluntary, unpaid arrangements typically among relatives. Before regulation, poor women, especially in rural and semi-urban areas, were recruited into surrogacy contracts without adequate legal counsel or health safeguards. Many of these women were made to live in "surrogacy hostels" under surveillance, isolated from their families and coerced into multiple pregnancies.

9 This created an environment akin to baby farming, wherein 4 Jinee Lokaneeta, “Illegal Adoptions and Human Trafficking in India: The Shadow of a System”, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 50, No. 22 (May 2015), pp. 14–17. 5 Sharmila Rudrappa, Discounted Life: The Price of Global Surrogacy in India, (New York University Press, 2015), p. 73.

6 “India's Orphanage Scam: Babies Trafficked for Overseas Adoption”, BBC News, Jan. 14, 2021,

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india 7 Press Trust of India, “Racket Busted in West Bengal: Babies Sold for Rs 1 Lakh Each”, The Hindu, Oct. 28, 2022. 8 V. Chandra-Mouli et al., “Regulating Surrogacy in India: Challenges and Gaps in Implementation”, Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 6, No. 3 (2020), pp. 158–163. 9 Rina Agarwala, “Laboring for Love: Surrogate Mothers in India’s Reproductive Industry”, Sociological Forum, Vol. 29, No. 1 (2014), pp. 25–47.

surrogacy clinics operated more like factories producing children for sale rather than services governed by ethics or law. Reports have documented clinics colluding with international clients and adoption agencies to bypass Indian laws, thereby transforming surrogacy into a cover for cross-border child trafficking.10 Despite the 2021 Act outlawing commercial surrogacy, underground practices persist due to poor enforcement, limited awareness, and continued demand from both Indian and foreign nationals.

2.3. Interlinking the Two: How Surrogacy and Adoption Fuel Trafficking

The most dangerous aspect of this phenomenon lies in the intersection between surrogacy and illegal adoption. There are documented cases where children born via surrogates were declared “abandoned” and then processed through illegal adoptions to foreign couples. 11 In other instances, surrogate-born children whose commissioning parents backed out were sold to adoption rackets or trafficked into child labor and sex trafficking networks. 12 One such case was reported in Gujarat, where a clinic facilitated the surrogacy process for an international couple, but after the couple failed to return, the child was handed over to another family without legal adoption procedures. The authorities later uncovered a chain of similar incidents revealing a racket in "recycling" surrogate children into illegal adoptions.

13 Such cases expose the blurred lines between reproductive services and child procurement. The commodification of children—whether through surrogacy or illegal adoption—has become a lucrative enterprise that thrives on legal inconsistencies, poor monitoring, and the desperate emotional needs of prospective parents. The same actors—agencies, clinics, middlemen— often facilitate both illegal adoptions and exploitative surrogacy arrangements, making it imperative to study them in an interconnected framework. 10 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Surrogacy and Human Trafficking: Emerging Trends”, UNODC Special Report, 2022, https://www. unodc. org/unodc/en/reports. html 11 Centre for Social Research, “Surrogacy Motherhood: Ethical or Commercial”, CSR Report, New Delhi, 2014, pp. 42–43. 12 “Commercial Surrogacy May Be the New Face of Child Trafficking: Experts”, India Today, Aug.

17, 2020.

13 “Gujarat Clinic Under Scanner in Surrogate Baby Scam”, The Times of India, Nov. 11, 2021.

III.

Legal and Regulatory Framework in India India has a fragmented yet growing legal framework aimed at curbing child trafficking and regulating adoption and surrogacy. However, loopholes and enforcement challenges persist. This section evaluates the domestic statutory provisions, regulatory authorities, and India’s international obligations relevant to trafficking through illicit adoption and surrogacy.

3.1. Domestic Laws

a. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 The “Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015” is the primary statute governing adoption in India. It provides for the adoption of orphaned, abandoned, and surrendered children through a centralized authority—CARA—to ensure transparency. 14 Section 58 of the Act lays out the procedures for adoption by Indian prospective adoptive parents living in India, while Sections 59 and 60 deal with inter-country adoption. 15 Despite its intentions, the Act is limited in addressing adoption rackets that operate outside CARA’s purview. The prevalence of “direct” adoptions without registration remains high, especially in rural areas and among certain religious communities. b.

The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 “The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 prohibits commercial surrogacy and permits only altruistic surrogacy for Indian heterosexual couples who are legally married and childless”. 16 It mandates registration of surrogacy clinics and pre-authorization by appropriate authorities. The law also establishes a “National and State Surrogacy Boards for oversight”. 17 However, the Act has been criticized for being exclusionary (e. g. , barring LGBTQIA+ individuals and single parents) and for failing to address clandestine commercial surrogacy 14 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, No. 2 of 2016, s. 58, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, sec. 1 (Jan. 15, 2016).

15 Ibid., ss. 59–60.

16 The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, No. 47 of 2021, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, sec. 1 (Dec. 25, 2021), s. 4. 17 Vrinda Marwah, “Regulating Reproduction: The Surrogacy Bill and Its Discontents”, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 57, No. 3 (2022), pp. 10–12.

arrangements. The exclusion has forced some intended parents to bypass legal procedures, inadvertently promoting underground practices. c. “The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021” “The ART Regulation Act, 2021 complements the Surrogacy Act” by regulating clinics offering fertility treatments such as IVF and gamete donation. 18 It prohibits sex selection and mandates consent and screening procedures. However, the lack of synergy between ART clinics and adoption bodies like CARA leaves gaps for illegal handover of children under the guise of “medical necessity. ”19 d. Child Adoption Regulations under CARA The Child Adoption Regulations, 2022—framed under the JJ Act—set eligibility criteria, documentation, and procedures for adoption by Indian and foreign nationals. 20 CARA also maintains a centralized child-matching portal.

However, delays in approval, lack of digitized child tracking systems, and underreporting by state adoption agencies hamper effective enforcement. 21

3.2. Gaps and Inconsistencies

One of the key legal challenges is the overlapping jurisdiction of multiple authorities— CARA, Surrogacy Boards, ART clinics, and state welfare departments. These bodies often function in silos, leading to regulatory confusion and accountability failures.22 For example, while CARA monitors adoption, there is no unified body that tracks children born through surrogacy who are later put up for adoption. Enforcement is another critical gap. CARA has limited investigative authority, and state-level child welfare committees (CWCs) are often under-resourced. Moreover, CARA relies heavily

18 The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, No. 45 of 2021, s. 3

19 T. Mohapatra, “Legalizing Assisted Reproduction: New Hopes, New Challenges”, Journal of Indian Law and Society, Vol. 13, No. 1 (2022), pp. 89–97.

20 Central Adoption Resource Authority, “Adoption Regulations, 2022”, Ministry of Women and Child

Development, Govt. of India, https://cara.nic.in 21 National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), “Report on Child Adoption Mechanism”, 2022, p. 17. 22 Devika Jain, “Fragmented Framework: Adoption, Surrogacy, and the Need for Unified Governance in India”, Indian Bar Review, Vol. 49, No. 2 (2023), pp. 114–121.

on reports submitted by adoption agencies and hospitals, making it susceptible to information asymmetry and manipulation. Digital tracking of children—essential to avoid duplication or loss—is still underdeveloped. While the CARINGS portal “Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System” was introduced to bring transparency, it does not integrate with hospital birth records, ART registries, or surrogacy clinics.23 This leaves a vacuum wherein children can easily be diverted from legal to illegal channels. Additionally, legal remedies for surrogate mothers or biological parents coerced into relinquishing children remain vague or inaccessible. The current framework emphasizes the protection of adoptive parents or commissioning parents but does not adequately safeguard the rights of vulnerable women and children subjected to trafficking.24

3.3. International Instruments and India’s Obligations

India is a signatory to several international conventions that impose obligations to prevent trafficking and protect children. a) “United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)” The UNCRC, ratified by India in 1992, obligates state parties to protect children from sale, trafficking, and abduction. Articles 21 and 35 specifically focus on adoption safeguards and anti-trafficking measures. 25 Despite this, India’s inconsistent enforcement dilutes its commitment to the Convention’s principles. b) Hague Convention on “Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption” India is not a signatory to the 1993 Hague Convention on Inter-country Adoption. This limits India’s ability to track cross-border adoption irregularities and to cooperate with other nations 23 Central Adoption Resource Authority, “CARINGS Portal Overview”, https://cara. nic.

in/parents/caring. html 24 Sneha Mukherjee, “Rights of Surrogate Mothers in India: Missing from the Legal Narrative”, NLU Delhi Working Paper, Series No. 03/2023 25 United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Arts. 21, 35, adopted Nov. 20, 1989, entered into force Sept. 2, 1990.

on trafficking investigations.26 Signing the Convention could help standardize procedures and close legal gaps in international adoption practices. c) “UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons (Palermo Protocol)” India ratified the Palermo Protocol in 2011, which calls for a victim-centered approach to trafficking, enhanced international cooperation, and criminalization of all trafficking forms.27 However, its integration into domestic law—especially concerning adoption and surrogacy— is fragmented and indirect. IV.

Judicial Trends and Case Law Analysis Indian courts have played a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape surrounding adoption, surrogacy, and child trafficking. While statutory regulation has often lagged, the judiciary has offered proactive interpretations, emphasized child welfare, and addressed gaps in enforcement and policy. Through landmark and recent judgments, the courts have scrutinized unethical practices in surrogacy and adoption and pressed for systemic reforms.

4.1. “Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India (2008)”

One of the earliest cases to bring surrogacy into the spotlight, “Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India” involved a Japanese couple who had engaged a surrogate mother in Gujarat. 28 Before the child’s birth, the couple divorced, and the biological father sought custody. Indian authorities initially refused to issue a passport, citing the absence of a legal framework. The Supreme Court intervened, recognizing the surrogate child’s right to legal identity and emphasizing the need for statutory regulation of surrogacy. Though the Court refrained from declaring surrogacy illegal or unconstitutional, it noted that surrogacy arrangements, especially commercial ones, raised significant ethical and legal concerns that warranted regulation. 29 The 26 The Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Status Table: Convention of 29 May 1993 on Intercountry Adoption”, https://www. hcch.

net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/? cid=69 27 United Nations, Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (Palermo Protocol), adopted Nov. 15, 2000, entered into force Dec. 25, 2003.

28 Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India, (2008) 13 SCC 518.

29 See K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, where the right to procreation and parenthood was linked to privacy.

case led to increased attention and eventually to the formulation of the “Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021”.

4.2. “Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984)”

In “Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, the petitioner, a lawyer, raised concerns over the exploitation of Indian children in inter-country adoptions, often facilitated by unregulated private agencies”.30 The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to ensure that adoptions, particularly those involving foreign nationals, were conducted in the best interest of the child. The Court emphasized that Indian parents should be given preference and that no adoption should occur without the involvement of recognized social or child welfare agencies. It also stressed periodic review, background checks, and post-adoption follow-ups to prevent trafficking. These principles were later codified in the Juvenile Justice Act and the rules of

CARA.31

4.3. Recent Judicial Interventions in Orphanage and Surrogacy Trafficking

Several High Courts and the Supreme Court have recently tackled cases involving fake orphanages, forged adoption documents, and surrogacy-related trafficking: • In Expl. of “CARA v. St. Theresa’s Orphanage,” the Delhi High Court in 2021 exposed how children were being funneled through illegal adoption channels in collusion with local officials. The Court emphasized the need for real-time digital monitoring and registration of all children under institutional care.32 • In “State v. XYZ Fertility Clinic”, the Bombay High Court in 2022 dealt with a case involving an unregistered surrogacy clinic where poor tribal women were coerced into surrogacy without proper medical or legal safeguards. The Court ordered the closure of the clinic, compensation to the victims, and called for mandatory integration of ART clinics with central monitoring systems.33

30 Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 244

31 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, No. 2 of 2016, ss. 56–68.

32 Expl. of CARA v. St. Theresa’s Orphanage, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 9234.

33 State v. XYZ Fertility Clinic, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 3218.

The Madras High Court in “S. Kavitha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2023)” censured the delay in adoption approvals by CARA and held that excessive bureaucracy was driving prospective parents towards illegal means. It urged the Ministry of Women and Child Development to simplify procedures and reduce dependency on paper-based verification.34

4.4. Judicial Commentary on Regulatory Inefficiencies

Indian courts have not merely interpreted law—they have actively called out regulatory inaction and inefficiencies. In “In Re: Exploitation of Children in Shelter Homes (2019)”, the Supreme Court, suo motu, took cognizance of trafficking and abuse in shelter homes across India. 35 It highlighted inter-agency disconnect, underfunding, and lack of trained personnel in Child Welfare Committees. Judges have increasingly emphasized that child rights cannot be sacrificed to administrative lethargy or inter-departmental confusion. In “Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021)”, the Court indirectly touched upon structural patriarchy and systemic neglect as factors enabling exploitation under the garb of legality.

36 Courts have also urged the integration of CARA, the “National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR)”, and the Ministry of Health for real-time data sharing and streamlined action on violations in adoption and ART practices. V.

Challenges in Enforcement and Ground-Level Realities Despite the existence of multiple statutes, policy guidelines, and regulatory bodies, the enforcement of child protection laws in the context of illicit adoption and surrogacy trafficking remains disjointed and ineffective. Structural deficiencies, corruption, lack of coordination, and poor training of enforcement personnel significantly dilute the intended impact of the legal framework.

34 S. Kavitha v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 1247.

35 In Re: Exploitation of Children in Shelter Homes, (2019) 14 SCC 318.

36 Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 3 SCC 247.

5.1 Weak Monitoring Mechanisms and Corruption in Adoption Agencies

One of the gravest concerns is the prevalence of corrupt practices within adoption and childcare institutions. Investigations have revealed that unregistered homes and agencies often collude with hospital staff, government officials, and intermediaries to forge documentation for trafficking children under the guise of adoption.37 Although the “Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA)” is mandated to supervise all adoptions under the Juvenile Justice Act, its monitoring mechanisms are plagued with delays and lack real-time oversight.38 The recent case of Ranchi-based Missionaries of Charity, accused of selling infants for adoption, brought national attention to how even highprofile institutions could be involved in trafficking.39 This demonstrates the inadequacy of institutional audits and unannounced inspections at the local level.

5.2 Lack of Victim Identification and Rehabilitation Protocols

India lacks a uniform victim identification framework to determine whether a child has been trafficked for surrogacy or adoption. As a result, many children rescued from illegal clinics or orphanages are not properly rehabilitated but are placed in institutional care without traumainformed services or follow-ups.40 The “Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development” remain under-implemented across most states.41 Many shelter homes lack mental health professionals, legal aid providers, or reintegration plans. The absence of a survivor-centric approach risks re-traumatization and further exploitation of rescued children.

5.3 Gaps in Training of Law Enforcement and Child Welfare Officers

Police officers and child welfare officials often lack training in identifying and investigating

37 Srivastava, S. "Adoption Racket: How Orphanages Are Selling Babies." India Today, 10 July 2018.

38 CARA, “Annual Report 2022–23,” Ministry of Women and Child Development, Govt. of India, available at https://cara.nic.in 39 National Commission for Protection of Child Rights v. Missionaries of Charity, (2021) SCC OnLine Jhar 1282.

40 Bachpan Bachao Andolan, “Missing Children & Trafficking: Status Report,” 2022, available at

https://bba.org.in/reports

41 Ministry of Women and Child Development, “Model SOPs for Rescue and Rehabilitation of Trafficked

Children,” 2021.

illicit adoption and surrogacy cases.42 There is also a poor understanding of the difference between legal adoption, baby selling, and “child trafficking under Section 370 of the IPC”. Consequently, traffickers often go unpunished due to mishandling of evidence, improper registration of cases, or weak prosecution. “The Child Welfare Committees (CWCs)”, set up under the Juvenile Justice Act, frequently comprise part-time members or politically connected individuals with no background in child rights or criminal justice.43 Their decisions often lack transparency, and their oversight capacity is severely limited.

5.4 Role of NGOs and Investigative Journalism

NGOs and media houses have filled critical gaps in the enforcement landscape. Investigative outlets such as “The Wire, Scroll.in, and India Today have uncovered cases of baby farming, forged documentation in inter-country adoptions, and coercive surrogacy practices”.44 Civil society actors have also been instrumental in rescuing trafficked children, offering legal aid, and conducting sensitization programs for law enforcement. However, NGOs often operate with limited resources and face administrative pushback when attempting to intervene in state-run institutions.45 Whistleblowers have also faced threats and harassment, underscoring the need for stronger legal protections for those exposing trafficking networks. VI.

Policy Gaps and Recommendations for Reform The existing legal architecture governing adoption and surrogacy in India, although extensive, remains fragmented and reactionary. Regulatory loopholes, poor enforcement, and lack of synergy among the responsible bodies create fertile ground for child trafficking networks. The following reforms are proposed to address systemic weaknesses and ensure better protection of children.

42 UNODC, Toolkit to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Law Enforcement and Prosecutors, 2019.

43 NCPCR, “Evaluation of Child Welfare Committees across States,” 2020, available at https://ncpcr.gov.in 44 Jain, R. “Baby Factories and Illegal Clinics: The Dark Underbelly of India's Surrogacy Market,” The Wire, 15 Aug. 2023. 45 HRLN, “NGOs and Child Protection in India: Barriers and Opportunities,” Legal Advocacy Brief, 2021.

6.1 Need for Comprehensive Anti-Trafficking Legislation

India urgently requires a consolidated and victim-centric anti-trafficking law that addresses modern trafficking forms, including those linked to adoption and surrogacy. “The Trafficking in Persons (Prevention, Care and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2021”, aims to broaden the definition of trafficking, establish a national anti-trafficking bureau, and introduce stricter penalties.46 However, the Bill has faced criticism for overlapping with existing laws and lacks specific provisions related to illicit adoption and ART-based trafficking.47 Its passage and implementation must be expedited with focused clauses on reproductive exploitation and child commodification.

6.2 Strengthening CARA’s Monitoring Infrastructure

The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) must invest in real-time digital surveillance tools integrated with birth registration databases, hospital discharge records, and police databases to flag irregularities in child movement and adoption processes.48 Biometric tagging and child tracking systems like those piloted in Tamil Nadu can be scaled nationally. Additionally, CARA should conduct frequent and unannounced audits of both state and private adoption agencies.49

6.3 Unified Central Regulatory Body

India currently has separate authorities regulating surrogacy (NSSB), ART (NAB), and adoption (CARA), which often operate in silos. This disjointed oversight permits traffickers to exploit regulatory blind spots. A Unified Child Welfare and Reproductive Regulation Authority should be established to harmonize protocols, share data, and issue integrated licences to clinics, agencies, and surrogate homes.50

46 Ministry of Women and Child Development, Draft Trafficking in Persons (Prevention, Care and

Rehabilitation) Bill, 2021, available at https://wcd.nic.in

47 Centre for Child Rights, NLUO, Comments on the 2021 Trafficking Bill, Legal Brief No. 14/2022.

48 CARA, “Annual Report 2022–23,” Ministry of Women and Child Development, Govt. of India, available at https://cara.nic.in 49 Sethi, R., “Digital Child Tracking System to Curb Child Trafficking: Tamil Nadu Model,” The Hindu, 21 Oct. 50 Law Commission of India, Report on Reproductive Technology and Child Protection, Report No. 279, 2024.

6.4 Mandatory DNA Testing and Parental Verification

To prevent the substitution or sale of children under the garb of adoption or surrogacy, mandatory DNA matching should be introduced pre- and post-birth.51 Hospitals and clinics must upload delivery data to a centralized system, and no child should be released to intended parents or agencies without DNA verification. These practices are already standard in some inter-country adoptions and can reduce fraud significantly.

6.5 Ratification of Hague Convention and International Cooperation

India is not a signatory to the 1993 Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, which limits its capacity to regulate cross-border adoptions effectively.52 Ratifying this convention would facilitate bilateral cooperation, vetting of foreign agencies, and minimize trafficking under the garb of international adoption. It will also enhance transparency and accountability in inter-country placements.

6.6 Public Awareness and Media Responsibility

Public education is key in reducing demand-side trafficking. Awareness campaigns highlighting the risks of illegal adoption, commercial surrogacy, and child exploitation must be mainstreamed across schools, health centres, and online platforms.53 The media must exercise greater caution in reporting child trafficking cases sensitively and ethically, avoiding sensationalism that compromises the identity or dignity of victims.54

7. Conclusion

The trafficking of children for illicit adoption and surrogacy remains one of the most severe and multi-dimensional forms of exploitation in India. It involves a complex web of illegal activities that spans fraudulent adoption networks, unregulated surrogacy practices, and the exploitation of both children and women. Despite the legal framework in place, these networks 51 Kumar, V. & Das, A. , “DNA Verification in Surrogacy and Adoption: Preventing Identity Fraud,” Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 13, 2023, p. 117. 52 Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Status Table: Convention of 29 May 1993 on Intercountry Adoption,” available at https://www. hcch. net 53 UNICEF India, “Community Awareness Toolkit on Child Trafficking and Adoption Fraud,” 2022, available at https://unicef. org/india 54 Press Council of India, “Norms of Journalistic Conduct,” 2022 Edition, Ch.

3: Reporting on Children and Sexual Abuse.

thrive due to gaps in enforcement, weak regulatory oversight, and insufficient victim protection mechanisms. The legal analysis has highlighted significant shortcomings in India's existing laws, such as the Juvenile Justice Act, Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, and the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, which lack effective implementation and fail to comprehensively address the interlinkages between adoption and surrogacy trafficking. Case law has demonstrated judicial awareness but also pointed out the challenges in enforcement, as seen in landmark cases like Baby Manji Yamada and Lakshmi Kant Pandey, which expose the regulatory deficiencies in this area. Urgent reforms are necessary to establish a coherent, child-centric framework that prioritizes the protection of vulnerable children and ensures accountability in adoption and surrogacy practices.

This requires a unified regulatory body, stronger monitoring mechanisms, DNA verification for both adoption and surrogacy, and greater international cooperation. Moreover, public awareness campaigns must be initiated to reduce demand and educate society about the grave consequences of trafficking. It is imperative that India adopts a robust, enforceable policy to address these systemic flaws, ensuring that trafficked children are protected, and those responsible for their exploitation are held accountable