Adoption Is Expression Of Reproductive Autonomy Under Article 21: Supreme Court

“The right of reproductive autonomy is not confined to the biological act of giving birth. Adoption is an equal exercise of the right to reproductive and decisional autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that non-biological modes of building a family are equally legitimate and meaningful, and an atypical family structure cannot strip away constitutional rights.

“when family structures and modes of parenthood have evolved and diversified, parenthood is not confined to the biological act of giving birth. It includes a broader spectrum of choices through which individuals realize their aspiration to build a family. Thus, an atypical or unconventional familial setup does not strip away the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In the aforesaid context, reproductive autonomy, therefore, cannot be narrowly understood as being limited to biological reproduction alone. Adoption, too, represents a conscious and meaningful exercise of the choice to create and nurture a family, and must be viewed as falling within the broader spectrum of reproductive decision-making”, the Court stated.

The Court added, “The choice to bring a child into one's life may also manifest through non-biological means such as adoption, which equally reflects an individual's autonomy in matters of parenthood and family formation. A mother takes birth the day a child comes into her life. While the day of the entry of the child in the mother's life slightly varies in case of biological route of attainment of motherhood, what follows after the coming of the child in the mother's life is a universal feeling, shared by all mothers - whether adoptive, surrogate or biological.”

It observed that adoption is an equally valid pathway for the creation of a family, as familial relationships are sustained by shared meaning, responsibility, and emotional bonds rather than biological factors alone.

“It is not biology that constitutes a family of a mother, father, and children, rather, it is the shared meaning, responsibility, and emotional bonds that sustain such a relationship. We say so because biological factors, by themselves, do not determine family behaviour or familial identity”, the Court observed.

The Court made these observations while reading down Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, which allowed maternity benefit to an adoptive mother only if the adopted child is less than 3 months of age. The Court held that the distinction violates Article 14 and 21 of the constitution, and an adoptive mother should be entitled to maternity leave of 12 weeks, irrespective of the age of the adopted child.

The Court observed that an adopted child is no different from a biological child and adoption constitutes a profound affirmation of parenthood because it reflects a conscious decision to assume parental responsibility.

“In such circumstances referred to above, an adopted child is no different from a so-called “natural” child, the only distinction is that the process of adoption is more visible and legally acknowledged. Thus, the act of adoption may carry an equally, if not more, profound affirmation of parenthood. There is no doubt that sharing of meaning, affection, and responsibility lies at the heart of both family creation and the adoption process”, the Court observed.

It emphasised that the act of adoption lies at the heart of family formation and must be recognised as part of the constitutional guarantee of dignity.

Referring to precedent on reproductive rights such as K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy 9J.) v. Union of India and Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., the Court observed that the right to make reproductive choices forms a part of personal liberty under Article 21. It held that reproductive autonomy includes the freedom not only to procreate biologically but also to raise children and form a family through adoption.

The Court thus concluded that maternity benefit for adoptive mothers cannot be confined keeping in mind the age of the child. It emphasised, “More so, when this benefit seeks to support motherhood and the welfare of the child, it must extend to adoptive mothers who undertake the equally significant responsibilities of nurturing and raising a child.”

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 960/2021

Case Title – Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment