While reading down section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, the Supreme Court urged the Union Government to introduce a law recognising paternity leave, observing that the absence of statutory paternity leave reinforces gendered caregiving roles and denies fathers any meaningful opportunity to participate in early childcare.
THE Supreme Court on Tuesday urged the Union Government to introduce a law recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit, observing that a father who remains physically near but is compelled by professional obligations to stay disengaged from early caregiving cannot truly participate in the formative experiences of a child’s infancy.
The observations came from a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan while delivering judgment in Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India, in which the Court read down section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, to extend maternity leave to all adoptive mothers regardless of the child’s age.
Justice Pardiwala observed that, “there exists a kind of injustice, although not deliberate, yet based on assumptions so deeply rooted that they have ceased to appear as injustice at all, and have come to be accepted as the natural order of things in society.”
The Court noted that society has historically attributed caregiving and nurturing responsibilities almost exclusively to mothers, and while the mother’s role is undeniably central to a child’s development, it would be incomplete and unjust to overlook the equally significant role of a father.
The Bench identified two consequences that flow from the absence of paternity leave. It reinforces gendered roles in parenting, the Court said, and even where a father is willing and desirous of contributing, he is left without any meaningful opportunity to do so.
When fathers are afforded leave following the arrival of a child, the Court observed, they are able to support the mother, share household responsibilities and remain emotionally present during a demanding phase.
The Court took particular note of the existing statutory position. Under sections 43-A and 43-AA of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, a male government servant is entitled to 15 days of paternity leave for the birth of a child or for adoption.
This provision, the Court acknowledged, reflects that the concept of paternity leave is not alien to Indian law, but remains minimally recognised. For private sector employees, however, there is no statutory framework governing paternity leave at all. Any leave available to fathers in the private sector depends entirely on individual company policy.
The judgment also took note of a private member’s bill introduced in Parliament by Lok Sabha member Supriya Sule in December 2025.
The Paternity and Paternal Benefits Bill, 2025, seeks to introduce paid paternal leave to ensure fathers have a legal right to participate in their child’s early development.
The Bill, which was introduced alongside the Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025, and a Code on Social Security (Amendment) Bill, 2025, has not yet been taken up for discussion.
Also read: Madras High Court issues notice to Centre on plea challenging BNSS pre-cognizance hearing provision
The Court drew a pointed distinction between proximity and presence. A father who is physically near yet bound by his professional obligations is not the same as a father who is present, the Bench observed.
What a father offers to a child in those nascent days cannot be scheduled for a convenient time or compensated for later, the Court stated. The Bench further observed that fathers have traditionally been perceived as providers, with their responsibilities revolving around financial stability, and because financial care does not resemble the visible, everyday nurturing, it has often been undervalued as a basis for recognising the need for leave.
In what was among the most poignant passages of the 100-page judgment, the Court observed that, “a child who is born or adopted does not know what the law has decided about presence of the father, nor does the child understand how the law values paternity leave.”
The child, the Court stated, experiences the presence or absence of closeness simply as the natural state of things, and the realisation that a parent arrived a little late to the story because the law required him to be present at work is something the child may never consciously know, yet the quiet cost of that absence is reflected in their relationship.
The Court emphasised that a provision for paternity leave would serve multiple purposes: it would help dismantle gendered roles, encourage fathers to take an active role in childcare, foster a balanced understanding of parenting, and promote gender equality within the family and the workplace. It also advances the best interests of the child, which are most effectively served when both parents are enabled to play meaningful and complementary roles.
India currently provides paid maternity leave of up to 26 weeks for women with fewer than two surviving children, and 12 weeks for those with two or more, under the Social Security Code, 2020. No corresponding statutory provision exists for paternity leave in the organised or unorganised private sector. The 15-day entitlement under the CCS (Leave) Rules applies only to central government employees.
The Court concluded its observations on paternity leave by urging the Union to come up with a provision recognising it as a social security benefit, emphasising that, “the duration of such leave must be determined in a manner that is responsive to the needs of both the parent and the child.”
Case title: Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India (2026 SC)
Leave a Reply