Bench: J.B. Pardiwala, J. and R. Mahadevan, J.
Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 402
Judgment Date: March 17, 2026
Petitioner: Hamsaanandini Nanduri
Respondents: Union of India & Ors.
Legal Provisions: Articles 14, 21, 42 of the Indian Constitution; Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020; Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961; Section 2(9) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Hamsaanandini Nanduri, is an adoptive mother and has adopted a child who was more than three months old. Similar to other adopting parents in India, she had to go through a long legal adoption process, which required her to go through registration, verification, counselling, and authorization. By the time she completed the process and got custody of the child, the child was also more than three months old.
When she applied to her employer for maternity leave to spend time with her child, she was denied leave based on Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, according to which the maternity benefit of twelve weeks is limited only to women adopting a child below three months of age or commissioning mothers. As the adopted child was already above three months of age, the petitioner was denied statutory protection.
Considering the law to be unjust against the adoptive mothers, she went to the Supreme Court and argued that motherhood is not limited to procreating and adoptive mothers deserve equal treatment against biological mothers. She filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging Section 60(4).
Issues Involved
Whether there is any valid reason for the differentiation based on the age of the child at the time of adoption and whether this classification serves the purpose of the legislation?
Whether Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, infringes Article 14 (Right to Equality) by prohibiting maternity benefits to adoptive mothers of kids over three months?
Whether the lack of maternity benefits to these adoptive mothers violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), which aims at ensuring the right to motherhood and dignity of life?
Rules Applied
Constitutional Provisions
(i) Article 14 of the Constitution of India: About Right to Equality and entails that there can be no arbitrary or discriminatory classifications.
(ii) Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Pertains to the Right to Live & Personal Liberty and covers the aspects of reproductive autonomy, dignity, and motherhood.
(iii) Article 42 of the Constitution of India: Directive Principle under which the State is bound to provide for maternity benefits.
Statutory Provisions
(iv) Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020: Maternity benefits for women who are adopting children below 3 months.
(v) Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961: Parent provision having similar restrictions.
(vi) Section 2(9) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Definition of the term ‘best interest of child’.
Authorities cited
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017); Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009); Rama Pandey v. Union of India (2015 SCC OnLine Del 10484); Chanda Keswani v. State of Rajasthan (2023 SCC OnLine Raj 3274).
Court’s Reasoning
Meaning of Maternity Leave: The Court dismissed the restricted interpretation which suggests that the maternity leave serves the purpose of protecting only biological mothers from the effects of childbirth. In line with prior verdicts such as Rama Pandey and Chanda Keswani, the Court held that maternity leave is based on the two principles of welfare of the mother and child. The needs of a child such as child care, emotional bonding and family integration do not depend on how exactly the child has come into the family.
Article 14: The Court utilized the dual scheme of classification, i.e., (1) intelligible differentia, and (2) rational connection to the intent of the law. The purpose of maternity benefits is to ensure the protection of motherhood and child welfare. The classification based only on the age of the child below or above three months has no rational connection with this intent. An adoptive mother wanting to bond with and take care of a four-month-old child requires the same amount of leave, if not more. The Court followed the approach that the government cannot create a new classification that excludes one category that is part of a larger group.
Article 21: The Court stated that the reproductive freedom guaranteed by Article 21 is not limited to the conventional process of giving birth. In this regard, the option of becoming a mother through adoption is protected under this Article. The decision to deny maternity leave to mothers by adoption violates their dignity and freedom to become a mother; the right of a child to develop properly is also violated as well. From the point of view of the law, the adopted child is no different from the biological child; the rights of the adoptive mother equal those of a biological mother.
Concerning Workability: The Court analysed the time needed to complete adoption according to the Juvenile Justice Act and Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) Regulations. The process of adoption is very lengthy and usually requires a rather lengthy period of time. Two months are needed for a surrendered child, and four months for an abandoned and orphaned child to complete the process. At the moment the adoption process is completed, a child is no more than three months old. The Court said that this provision is nearly impossible to implement. Regarding paternity leave: The Court mentioned that this is not a mandatory provision. Hence, the Court has called on the Union to consider introducing legislation for paternity leave since a situation where both parents share the responsibility of raising children decreases gender prejudice and contributes positively to family health.
Judgement
The Supreme Court of India accepted the writ petition against Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 and declared it to be unconstitutional since it provided an age limit of three months for the adoptive mothers to claim maternity benefits. The Court was of the opinion that this Clause was a violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court interpreted Section 60(4) as follows:
“A woman who legally adopts a child or a commissioning mother shall have a right to maternity benefits for a period of twelve weeks from the date she receives the child.”
Analysis
This ruling again confirms that the right to equality is guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be denied through the law. It has the right opinion on motherhood that motherhood is based on love, taking care of and being responsible instead of being just a physical state.
It shows the importance of Articles 14 and 21 in family law and social security, stating that adoption as a form of reproductive freedom should be treated in the same way as biological motherhood. The decision cancels the unreasonable three-month limit in the three months and causes a situation where adoptive mothers enjoy the same rights as biological ones Nevertheless, the ruling is not perfect. By eliminating the limit, the Court does bring maternity leave for adoptive mothers, although the problem of age limitation still exists. Now it is on the legislature to propose a reliable option. While the Court’s idea about paternity leave is good, it has no legal implications and gives fathers seeking leave to take care of adopted children no safety. The ruling does not cover single fathers either.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY RAJIV KAUR FROM ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI
References
