Adoptive mothers entitled to maternity leave regardless of child’s age

At a glance

• The Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) examined the constitutional validity of restricting maternity benefits for adoptive mothers to cases where the adopted child is below three months of age.
• It examined whether such age‑based differentiation satisfies the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India (Constitution).
• Supreme Court examined the scope of reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution and whether it includes adoption as a mode of family formation.
• Practical workability of the provision in view of statutory adoption timelines has been deliberated on.
• Broader implications for gender roles in caregiving, including the absence of a statutory paternity leave framework has also been discussed.

We would like to express gratitude to JSA for their contribution on this publication.

In Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India, the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security 2020 (pari materia with Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961), which confined maternity benefits for adoptive mothers to cases where the adopted child is below three months of age. The petitioner challenged the provision as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, also highlighting that the statutory adoption process itself typically exceeds the prescribed age threshold.

The Supreme Court undertook a wide‑ranging analysis of international conventions, Indian legislative history, and comparative jurisprudence, and clarified that maternity benefits serve multiple purposes—emotional bonding, caregiving, and integration of the child into the family—apart from physical recovery post‑childbirth. It held that adoptive mothers of children above and below three months are similarly situated with respect to these objectives, rendering the age‑based distinction constitutionally unsustainable.

Importantly, the Supreme Court recognised adoption as an expression of reproductive and decisional autonomy, bringing it squarely within the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution. It further held that denying maternity benefits based on the child’s age adversely affects both the dignity of the adoptive mother and the welfare of the child, particularly during the crucial post‑adoption adjustment period

The Supreme Court also found the impugned provision to be practically illusory, noting that statutory safeguards under adoption laws cannot be compressed to align with an arbitrary benefit threshold. Consequently, Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 was read down to extend 12 weeks of maternity benefit to all adoptive mothers, regardless of the age of the child at adoption. Supreme Court strongly urged the union government to consider introducing a dedicated statutory regime for paternity leave as part of the social security framework.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a decisive shift toward a more inclusive and constitutionally grounded understanding of maternity benefits, affirming that motherhood is defined by caregiving, bonding, and responsibility rather than biological processes alone. By striking down the age‑based restriction for adoptive mothers, the Supreme Court has aligned social security law with the principles of equality, dignity, reproductive autonomy, and the best interests of the child. The judgment not only ensures meaningful institutional support during the critical post‑adoption period but also signals a broader re‑evaluation of caregiving roles within the workplace, laying the foundation for more progressive, gender‑neutral parental benefit frameworks going forward.