The Supreme Court declared that the three-month age restriction in section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, which denied maternity benefits to adoptive mothers of older children, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court read down the provision to entitle all adoptive mothers to 12 weeks of maternity leave regardless of the adopted child’s age.
THE Supreme Court on Tuesday read down section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, holding that the provision’s requirement that age of the adopted child must be below three months for the adoptive mother to claim maternity benefit is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R .Mahadevan ruled that all adoptive mothers are entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave from the date the child is handed over, irrespective of the child’s age at the time of adoption.
The ruling came on a writ petition filed by advocate Hamsaanandini Nanduri, an adoptive mother of two children, who had originally challenged the corresponding provision under section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as amended in 2017.
When the Social Security Code, 2020, came into effect in November 2025, repealing the 1961 Act, the challenge shifted to the corresponding provision in the new Code.
The petitioner contended that the age-based restriction was arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, arguing that it created legal hurdles for women seeking to adopt.
She pointed to procedural timelines under the Central Adoption Resource Authority regulations, noting that in cases of abandoned or orphaned children, the Child Welfare Committee may take two to four months to declare a child legally free for adoption.
Children surrendered by biological parents, she submitted, are subject to a 60-day reconsideration period. By the time these formalities are completed, the child is unlikely to be below three months of age, rendering the provision practically unworkable.
The Union of India, for its part, argued that biological mothers are granted longer leave of 18 weeks on account of the need for physical recovery following delivery, and drew a distinction between biological and adoptive motherhood.
The Court, however, noted that the issue was not the duration of leave but the complete denial of benefits to adoptive mothers based solely on the age of the child.
The Bench questioned how an adoptive mother could be expected to care for a child adopted at an older age if she was denied maternity benefit altogether.
In its analysis, the Court identified three components of maternity leave:
the time necessary for physical recovery after childbirth;
the time required to nurture the emotional bond between mother and child;
and the time needed to attend to the child’s physical and emotional needs as the child integrates into the family.
In the case of adoption, the Court observed, while the first component is absent, the second and third remain equally present and significant.
The legislative recognition of maternity leave for adoptive mothers under section 60(4) was itself, the Court said, an acknowledgement of the importance of these components.
Testing the constitutional validity of the impugned provision, the Bench held that the distinction drawn between women adopting children below three months and those adopting older children bears no rational nexus with the object of the Social Security Code.
Justice Pardiwala observed that, “the age limit renders the provision illusory and devoid of practical application.”
The Court found the classification discriminatory on three grounds:
it discloses no reasonable distinction between the two categories of adoptive mothers,
the differentiation bears no nexus with the legislative object,
and it suffers from under-inclusiveness.
The Court further held that confining maternity benefit based on the child’s age would operate to the detriment of children with disabilities, who may require greater time for emotional adjustment. In the absence of adequate maternity benefit, a single adoptive mother may be compelled to choose between her employment and the immediate needs of her child, the Bench observed.
On the touchstone of Article 21, the Court recognised adoption as an exercise of reproductive and decisional autonomy. Referring to precedent in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, the Bench held that reproductive autonomy cannot be narrowly understood as limited to biological reproduction alone.
The Court observed that, “adoption, too, represents a conscious and meaningful exercise of the choice to create and nurture a family.” An adopted child, the Court stated, is no different from a biological child, and the bonds that sustain a family are rooted in shared meaning, responsibility and emotional connection rather than biological factors alone.
Also read: Passive euthanasia: Article 21 and the right to die with dignity
The Court read down section 60(4) to now provide that, “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 words “below the age of three months” stand removed.
In a notable observation before parting, the Bench urged the Union Government to introduce legislation recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit.
The Court noted that existing provisions under sections 43-A and 43-AA of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules grant male government servants only 15 days of paternity leave, and emphasised that the absence of adequate paternity leave reinforces traditional gender roles and deprives fathers of a meaningful opportunity to participate in early childcare.
The duration of such leave, the Court urged, must be responsive to the needs of both the parent and the child.
Case title: Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 960/2021 [2026 INSC 246]
Leave a Reply