SC orders maternity leave for all adoptive mothers - irrespective of age of child

THe sublime margaret court on tues struck shoot down a purvey in the Code on Social Security, 2020 that limited maternity leave for adoptive mothers to those adopting children below three months of age, holding that all adoptive mothers will be entitled to 12 weeks’ leave from the date of adoption, irrespective of the child’s age.In a significant ruling expanding the scope of parental rights and workplace equality, a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan declared Section 60(4) of the Code unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 21 (equality and dignity), ruling that the provision created an arbitrary and under-inclusive classification that bore no rational nexus to the object of maternity protection.Reading down the provision, the court held that it must now be interpreted to grant 12 weeks of maternity benefit to adoptive and commissioning mothers from the date the child is handed over, removing the three-month age threshold altogether.At the heart of the 100-page judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala is the recognition that motherhood is not merely a biological event but a social, emotional and constitutional reality. “The object of maternity benefit is not associated with the process of childbirth but with the process of motherhood,” held the bench, adding that the purpose of maternity protection does not vary with the manner in which a child enters a family.The court rejected the long-standing distinction between biological and adoptive mothers as constitutionally unsustainable, observing that parenthood is defined by care, responsibility and emotional bonds, not by the act of giving birth alone. It declared that adoption is an equally valid exercise of reproductive and decisional autonomy under Article 21, placing it firmly within the framework of fundamental rights.Applying the test of permissible classification, the bench found that the distinction between adoptive mothers of children below and above three months fails both limbs of Article 14 scrutiny.First, it held that there is no intelligible difference, as women adopting children of any age are similarly situated in terms of caregiving responsibilities, emotional investment and need for institutional support. Second, the classification had no rational nexus with the objective of the law, which is to ensure child welfare, maternal bonding, and workplace equality. “The need for economic security, institutional support, and protection of dignity does not diminish merely on account of the age of the child,” the it said.The ruling came in a petition filed by Karnataka-based lawyer Hamsaanandini Nanduri, challenging the provision, originally part of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and later carried into the 2020 Code, as discriminatory. Through the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), she adopted two siblings -- a four-and-a-half-year-old girl and her two-year-old brother, after authorities insisted the children not be separated. When she sought maternity leave from her employer, she was informed she was entitled to only six weeks’ leave per child, in keeping with the company’s policy as neither child met the three-month age threshold. To be sure, under the code of social security, she would have been entitled to no leave at all.Her plea, argued through advocate Bani Dikshit highlighted how the law effectively denied maternity leave to adoptive parents of older children, even though India’s adoption framework rarely permits adoption of children below three months, making the benefit largely illusory.The Centre, represented through Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, defended the provision, but the court agreed in December 2025 to examine its validity after the 2020 Code came into force, replacing the 1961 law while retaining the same restriction.In its judgment, the bench also flagged the under-inclusive nature of the provision, noting that while mothers adopting children below three months received full benefits, those adopting children even a day older were denied any leave -- an “all-or-nothing” approach divorced from real-world caregiving needs.The judgment placed considerable emphasis on the realities of adoption, describing it as a process of mutual adjustment and integration that demands sustained emotional and physical presence of the parent.The court noted that children, especially those adopted at an older age or with disabilities, require time, reassurance and stability to overcome past vulnerabilities and integrate into a new family environment. Denying maternity leave in such situations, it said, undermines both the child’s welfare and the purpose of social welfare legislation.The bench further highlighted the unique challenges faced by single adoptive mothers, who bear the entire burden of caregiving while balancing professional responsibilities, observing that denial of leave could force them into an untenable choice between employment and parenting.Reinforcing the primacy of child welfare, the court held that the best interests of the child extend well beyond the formal act of adoption. “The true fulfilment of the child’s welfare lies in enabling the child to meaningfully adjust, bond, and flourish within the family environment,” noted the court, describing the post-adoption period as the most critical phase in the child’s development.The bench underlined that maternity benefits are as much about the child’s emotional and developmental needs as they are about the mother’s rights, bringing the ruling in line with both constitutional principles and international child welfare norms.Apart from constitutional infirmities, the court also found the provision to be practically unworkable. It noted that under India’s adoption framework, a child can rarely be declared legally free for adoption within three months, meaning that by the time the adoption process is completed, the statutory age limit would typically be exceeded. This rendered the benefit “illusory” and largely inaccessible, defeating the very purpose of the legislation.In a broader articulation, the court described maternity protection as a basic human right, integral to dignity, equality and social justice. It held that maternity benefits are essential to ensure that women can exercise reproductive choices without compromising economic security, and to correct structural inequalities in the workplace. “Motherhood is not merely a biological function but a deeply personal and emotional experience… rooted in the freedom to love, nurture, and raise a child with dignity,” the judgment said.