Recently, the Supreme Court of India held that adoptive mothers are entitled to 12 (twelve) weeks of paid maternity leave, irrespective of the age of the child at the time of adoption.
In Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India, the Court recently examined the constitutional validity of Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020 (“SS Code”) (previously Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961), which restricted maternity benefits for adoptive mothers who adopted a child under the age of 3 (three) months. The provision was challenged on the grounds that it is discriminatory under Article 14 and infringes upon the rights of adoptive mothers and children under Article 21, particularly in the context of reproductive autonomy and the child’s right to care and development.
The Court struck down Section 60(4) of the SS Code, holding that an adoptive mother has the same rights and obligations towards a child as a biological mother. It reiterated that maternity benefits are intended to provide economic and social support during early motherhood, when a parent is most engaged in caregiving and nurturing responsibilities.
The Court observed that the distinction between a woman legally adopting a child below the age of 3 (three) months and those who adopt a child aged 3 (three) months or above lacks a rational nexus with the intention and object of the SS Code. It emphasised that adoption involves a broader, bilateral process of adjustment and integration between the child and the adoptive family, and that caregiving needs do not cease abruptly based on a rigid age threshold.
On this basis, the Court held that the classification under Section 60(4) is discriminatory, under-inclusive, and violative of Article 14. It also examined the issue through the lens of Article 21, recognising that denial of such benefits may impact both the adoptive mother’s autonomy and the child’s right to holistic care and development. The Court further observed that statutory provisions must be assessed in light of real-world implications rather than in isolation.
Separately, the Court noted the absence of a statutory framework for paternity leave in India and urged the Union Government to consider introducing paternity leave as a social security benefit, with duration aligned to the needs of both the parent and the child. This reflects a broader judicial shift towards recognising shared caregiving responsibilities and more inclusive parental benefit frameworks.
From a practical standpoint, this decision signals a progressive and purposive interpretation of parental benefits in line with evolving realities. The Court has expressly taken into account the practical realities and challenges associated with adoption, including the need for time and support for integration and bonding, as well as the additional considerations that may arise in cases involving adoption of children with disabilities.
Employers should review and update their maternity and adoption leave policies to align with this position. In particular, employers would now be required to provide 12 (twelve) weeks of paid maternity leave to a woman employee who adopts a child, irrespective of the age of the child at the time of adoption. Organisations should also remain mindful of potential developments in relation to paternity leave and consider adopting more inclusive policies in anticipation of future regulatory changes.
Somya Bhargava and Deepti Thakkar
You can direct your queries or comments to the authors.