Denying Maternity Benefits To Adoptive Mothers Of Children Above Three Months Unconstitutional: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 17) held that Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, which allow maternity benefit to an adoptive mother only if the adopted child is less than 3 months of age, is unconstitutional.

The Court held that an adoptive mother should be entitled to maternity leave of 12 weeks, irrespective of the age of the adopted child. The Court read down the provision as follows: "A woman who legally adopts a child, or a commissioning mother, shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of 12 weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mother or the commissioning mother, as the case may be."

The provision earlier held that this benefit is available only to a woman who legally adopts a child "below the age of three months".

A bench of Justice Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held that adoptive mothers are entitled to maternity leave regardless of the age of the children.

The Court held that the distinction drawn by Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code has no rational nexus with the objective of the Social Security Code, 2020. The need for maternal care for an adopted child does not vary. The age-based distinction is not a rational classification, as the maternal responsibilities of a woman adopting a child above 3 months are the same as those of a woman adopting a child aged less than 3 months.

"The age limit renders the provision illusory and devoid of practical application," Justice Pardiwala stated in the judgment, holding the provision as violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

In the judgment, the Court also urged the Union to bring a law recognising paternal leave as a social security benefit. The duration of such leave must be determined in a manner that is responsive to the needs of both parents.

Background

The petition was filed in 2021 originally challenging Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as amended by the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, which grants maternity leave of 12 weeks to an adoptive mother only if the child adopted is below three months of age. On November 12, 2024, the Court issued notice to the Union Government on a PIL filed by an adoptive mother who has adopted two children since 2017.

Later, when the Social Security Code, 2020, came into effect last November, repealing the Maternity Benefit Act, the focus shifted to the corresponding provision in the 2020 Code.

The petitioner contended that the provision is arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g) as it creates legal hurdles for women seeking to adopt infants, particularly given procedural timelines under the Central Adoption Resource Authority regulations. She pointed out that in cases of abandoned or orphaned children, the Child Welfare Committee may take two to four months to declare the child legally free for adoption, while children surrendered by biological parents are subject to a 60-day reconsideration period.

On January 29, 2025, the Court reserved judgment after hearing arguments on the validity of the provision. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the adoption framework is governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and argued that adoptive mothers who take in children older than three months are entirely excluded from maternity benefits.

During the hearing, Justice Pardiwala questioned the rationale for fixing the age threshold at three months and whether there was any nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved.

The Union of India argued that biological mothers are granted longer leave of 18 weeks due to the need for recovery after delivery. However, the Court pointed out that the issue before it was not the duration of leave but the curtailment of benefits based solely on the age of the adopted child. The Court also raised concerns about how an adoptive mother is expected to care for a child adopted at an older age if she is denied maternity benefit altogether.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 960/2021

Case Title – Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India