The Supreme Court has struck down the 3 month limit for maternity leave to adoptive mothers.
The judgment was authored by Justice J. B. Pardiwala, who emphasized that motherhood is not confined to biological childbirth and that the law must recognise the emotional and caregiving realities of adoptive parenting.
Justice Pardiwala observed that the common assumption that maternity benefits apply only to biological childbirth reflects a narrow understanding of motherhood. The Court stated that an adoptive mother bears the same emotional responsibilities toward the child as a biological mother.
The petitioner, an adoptive mother of two children, approached the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as amended in 2017. The provision allowed maternity benefits of 12 weeks only to women who adopt a child below the age of three months.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the relevant provision was incorporated into the Code on Social Security, 2020as Section 60(4). The petitioner amended the challenge accordingly.
Under the impugned provision, an adoptive mother could receive maternity benefits only if the adopted child was younger than three months at the time of adoption. The petitioner argued that this age restriction was arbitrary and discriminatory because many legal adoption procedures take longer than three months to complete, effectively denying most adoptive mothers the benefit.
The petitioner contended that the provision violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution by creating an unreasonable classification among adoptive mothers. According to her submissions: The distinction between mothers adopting children below three months and those adopting older children had no rational nexus with the object of maternity benefits. The statutory adoption process under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Adoption Regulations, 2022 itself often takes several months, making the benefit practically inaccessible. Denying maternity leave to adoptive mothers of children older than three months ignores the emotional and developmental needs of the child as well as the bonding period required after adoption.
Representing the Union Government, the Additional Solicitor General argued that the provision was reasonable and balanced the interests of both employees and employers. The government maintained that younger infants require more intensive care and that workplace facilities such as crèches could address childcare needs for older children.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of maternity protection as a basic human right, referring to international conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
The Court stressed that maternity benefits are designed not only to facilitate physical recovery after childbirth but also to enable emotional bonding between the mother and child. Support the integration of the child into the family. Ensure economic security for women during early caregiving.
While biological mothers require time for physical recovery, adoptive mothers require time for emotional bonding and caregiving. The Court noted that these latter aspects are equally critical and cannot be ignored simply because the child was not born to the mother.
Applying the constitutional test of reasonable classification under Article 14, the Court held that the law must treat similarly situated individuals alike. The classification between adoptive mothers based solely on whether the child is below or above three months was found to be arbitrary and under-inclusive.
The Court reasoned that adoptive mothers of older children are equally in need of time to care for and bond with the child, and excluding them defeats the very purpose of maternity benefits. .
Case Details
Case Title: Hamsaanandini Nanduri Versus UOI
Citation: JURISHOUR-417-SC-2026
Case No.: Writ Petition (C) No. 960 Of 2021
Date: 17/03/2026
