Click the Play button to listen to article

Bringing home a child is one of the most significant lifestyle changes an individual can experience, and for many, adopting a child can be a truly wonderful experience. Adoption can be a challenging process, and it can demand a lot of time and require a certain amount of flexibility as well as financial and emotional support from employers. Nevertheless, for many, the most difficult part of adoption is getting the time off necessary to bond with their new child.

Adoption can demand a great deal of time, flexibility, and emotional support, especially when working parents have to balance the transition into family life with their professionals responisibilities. The constitutional significance of adoption was considered by the Supreme Court in Hamsaanandini Nanduri vs Union Of India (2026). The adoption regulations were also meant to apply to commissioning mothers, that is, those who have children through surrogacy. But the problem before the court was about adoptive mothers. The Court reviewed the adoption procedure set out under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2015, along with the Adoption Regulations,2022, which were framed by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA). It pointed to the practical challenges posed by the three-month age limit, considering how long it takes to complete the legal adoption process and bring a child into the adoptive family. The court employed the constitutional principles concerning reproduction and the choice to conceive to ascertain the importance of adoption in the context of maternity benefits. The Court accordingly held the three-month age restriction under Section60(4) of the Code on Social Security,2020, to be unconstitutional on the grounds of Articles 14 and 21, and ordered that eligible adoptive mothers shall be entitled to twelve weeks of maternity benefit from the date the child is handed over.

The judgment is essential to consider the existence of the legal protection of adoptive parents and the support of them upon returning to work. However, recognising the right to adoption leave raises a further issue of rights in relation to support on return to work. The Code of Social Security 2020 considers work from home and maternity benefit under section 60(5), nursing breaks under section 66, and crèche under section 67. The equality analysis is the more onerous constitutional requirement. The government's submission supporting a three-month cut-off was that a child older than three months has less intensive dependency on the primary caregiver and that the creche facilities available under Section 67 of the Code served as an adequate alternative for mothers who fell out of provision. Both were rejected. The creche obligation under Section 67 applies only to establishments with 50 or more employees, a significant number of working women, especially in the informal and small-enterprise sectors. That obligation applies equally to a woman adopting a five-month-old child. The distinction between women adopting below three months and women adopting above it does not have any rational nexus with that object. It is, in the court's formulation, under-inclusive: it confers a benefit on some similarly situated persons and denies it to others, without justification.

Does India's law provide sufficient support to adoptive parents to care for their children at their workplace after the statutory adoption-leave period, such as in the form of childcare facilities, nursing breaks or flexible work schedules?

In addition, the Court took into account International agreements on maternity protection, including the International Labour Organisation's Maternity Protection Conventions, as well as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Both conventions serve as global standards for protecting the interests of women in the field of employment and are particularly relevant to the current discussion. Nevertheless, it is essential to differentiate between the norms of international law and the current state of Indian law, which may not fully incorporate such conventions.

Specifically, the issue of parental leave for adoptive parents after the statutory adoption-leave period is separate from the discussion of international conventions. However, the recognition of maternity benefits in the case of adoption is only a part of the story. In truth, the central issue stems from the point when the leave is over, and the working parent has to return to the office, continuing to care for the child who has had to adapt to a new environment. Even though the law is on the side of adoptive mothers, it is worth asking whether the current framework offers sufficient support in terms of resources, as well as coverage beyond the leave.

Section 60(5) of the Code on Social Security,2020, provides that, if the nature of the work allows for it and the employer and employee agree, work from home will be permitted after the maternity benefit period. While this provision is a helpful acknowledgement of the need for flexibility in the employment of mothers, it does not provide an absolute right to work from home for every employee. Therefore, whether such a right exists depends on the nature of the employment and whether the employer assents to it. However, the question arises whether a mutual agreement satisfies the needs of an adoptive parent during the transition from adoption leave to work. Although working from home could be a viable solution in some circumstances, it is not available to every parent seeking to balance childcare and employment.

The Code of Social Security,2020 provides for nursing breaks under section 66 for female workers who return to work after childbirth until the age of the child reaches fifteen months. Although the previous provision recognises the needs of a child even after the return of the mother to work, the mention of a woman who gave birth makes one wonder about the position of adoptive mothers. An adoptive child also needs care until a parent returns to work after adoption leave.

The Code on Social Security, 2020, in section 67, obliges any establishment employing at least fifty workers to provide crèche facilities as per the applicable laws) to meet the childcare needs of its employees. The provision is advantageous to an adoptive parent because it allows a parent to leave a child at a crèche at the workplace. Thus, this provision raises the issue of whether the needs of adoptive parents are adequately addressed by the code by only providing crèche facilities for those working in establishments of at least fifty workers.

Taken together, these provisions raise an important question about the continuation of the support at the workplace to the adoptive parents. Whether they can work from home depends on the nature of the work and mutual agreement; nursing breaks raise questions about the status of the adoptive mothers, and the statutory crèche requirements apply to establishments employing fifty or more employees. Each of these measures addresses different aspects of the care needed for the child, but the adequacy of the care after the period of adoption leave needs closer examination. The clarification of the application of existing protections to the adoptive parents would help reduce the uncertainty.

The recognition of adoption-related maternity benefits is a significant step in the evolution of the law concerning parenthood and breastfeeding. The period following the return of the employee to work raises further questions of flexibility and access to lactation breaks and to children. Indian law should be evaluated not only based on the leave granted, but also on the opportunities it offers the parent after returning to work. A more comprehensive and inclusive workplace approach would better serve the needs of the adoptive family and would balance the needs of both the employer and the parent.

Author is a B.A. LL.B. Student at University Law College, Utkal University. Views are personal.

Tags: