Supreme Court rules age limit in maternity benefits for adoptive mothers unconstitutional
Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020 restricted leave to adoptions of children under 3 months
Court says restriction violates equality and denies adoptive families adequate caregiving time
Urges Centre to recognise paternity leave as part of social security benefits
The Supreme Court has struck down a provision in India’s social security law that restricted maternity benefits for adoptive mothers to cases where the child was below three months of age, holding the classification unconstitutional.
In a judgment delivered on March 17, 2026 in the case Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020 violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and the right to life.
The court held that adoptive mothers are entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave irrespective of the age of the child at the time of adoption.
The provision had earlier limited this benefit to women adopting children under three months, effectively excluding most adoptive parents. The text of the Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code stated: “A woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months or a commissioning mother shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mother or the commissioning mother, as the case may be.”
The order stated that the provision must now read as: “A woman who legally adopts a child or a commissioning mother shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mother or the commissioning mother, as the case may be.”
The court found that the distinction between adoptive mothers based on the child’s age had no rational connection to the purpose of maternity benefits. “The object of maternity benefit is not associated with the process of childbirth but with the process of motherhood,” the court observed.
It added that the responsibilities, caregiving demands and emotional adjustments involved in adoption remain substantially the same regardless of the child’s age.
The bench also noted that adoption is an equally valid exercise of reproductive autonomy under Article 21, and not secondary to biological parenthood.
A key factor in the ruling was the practical difficulty of adopting very young infants under India’s legal framework.
The court pointed out that by the time a child is legally declared free for adoption, it is unlikely to be under three months old, rendering the provision ineffective. “The age limit renders the provision illusory and devoid of practical application,” the judgment said.
The bench emphasised that the best interests of the child must guide policy, noting that integration into an adoptive family requires time, care and bonding beyond the formal act of adoption.
It held that denying leave to adoptive mothers of older children undermines both maternal care and the child’s development.
Following the ruling, the court directed that Section 60(4) be read to provide maternity benefits to all adoptive mothers and commissioning mothers for 12 weeks from the date the child is handed over.
The court also urged the Union government to consider introducing paternity leave as a social security benefit, stating that caregiving responsibilities should be shared and responsive to the needs of both parents and the child.
“We urge the Union to come up with a provision recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit. We emphasise 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,” the order stated.