The Supreme Court on Tuesday declared as unconstitutional a key provision in the Code on Social Security, 2020, that restricted maternity leave for adoptive mothers to those adopting children below three months of age, holding that all adoptive mothers will be entitled to 12 weeks of leave from the date of adoption, irrespective of the child’s age.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that the age-based classification under Section 60(4) of the Code was “discriminatory” and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, emphasising that adoption is an equally valid pathway to parenthood and cannot be treated differently from biological childbirth.
In a notable observation, the bench also urged the Union government to consider introducing paternity leave as a social welfare measure, signalling the need for a more gender-neutral and inclusive approach to caregiving.
Delivering the judgment, justice Pardiwala said the provision failed the test of constitutional scrutiny as it bore no rational nexus with the object of maternity protection, which is to ensure care, bonding and integration of the child into the family.
“The impugned provision is held to be discriminatory both for the adoptive mother as well as the adoptive child. Adoption is an equally meaningful pathway for creating a family…biological factors cannot exclusively determine familial values and entitlements,” the court said.
{{/usCountry}}“The impugned provision is held to be discriminatory both for the adoptive mother as well as the adoptive child. Adoption is an equally meaningful pathway for creating a family…biological factors cannot exclusively determine familial values and entitlements,” the court said.
{{/usCountry}}Reading down Section 60(4), the court held that the statutory benefit of 12 weeks’ maternity leave must apply equally to adoptive and commissioning mothers, beginning from the date of adoption, without any age restriction on the child.
The bench underscored that the purpose of maternity leave does not vary based on how a child enters a family, rejecting the distinction drawn between mothers adopting infants below three months and those adopting older children.
“A mother cannot be differentiated between one who brings home a child less than three months and one who adopts a child of a higher age,” the court held. It added that the right to reproductive autonomy is not confined to biological birth, expanding the constitutional understanding of parenthood to include adoption.
The court placed significant emphasis on the best interests of the child, noting that older children, particularly those adopted from institutional care, often require greater time for emotional adjustment and integration into a new family. “The paramount consideration has to be the best interest of the child…including the period required for the child to integrate into the new family,” the bench said.
By denying maternity leave for children above three months, the law not only disadvantaged adoptive mothers but also undermined the welfare and developmental needs of adopted children, the court held.
The ruling comes in a petition filed by Karnataka-based lawyer Hamsaanandini Nanduri, who had challenged the provision, earlier contained in the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and later reproduced in the 2020 Code, as arbitrary and exclusionary.
Her plea, argued through advocate Bani Dikshit highlighted how the law effectively denied maternity leave to adoptive parents of older children, even though India’s adoption framework rarely permits adoption of children below three months, making the benefit largely illusory.
The Centre, represented through additional solicitor general KM Nataraj, had defended the provision, but the court had agreed in December 2025 to examine its validity after the 2020 Code came into force, replacing the 1961 law while retaining the same restriction.
Tuesday’s ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for labour and adoption law in India, aligning maternity benefits with the realities of adoption and care-giving.