SYLLABUS
GS-2: Functions and Responsibilities of the Union and the States; Structure, Organization and Functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary.
Context: The Supreme Court in Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India (2026) held that denying maternity leave to adoptive mothers based on the age of the child is unconstitutional.
More on the News
• The Supreme Court struck down/read down Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, which restricted maternity benefits to adoptive mothers only if the child was below three months of age.
• The Court ruled that adoptive mothers are entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave irrespective of the child’s age, to be counted from the date the child is handed over.
• The judgment arose from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an adoptive mother challenging the provision as arbitrary and discriminatory.
• The provision originated from Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and was retained in the 2020 Code.
• The Court highlighted that legal and procedural delays in adoption (such as declaration of a child legally free for adoption, reconsideration periods, etc.) make it practically impossible to adopt a child below three months.
• The Court also emphasized that adoption is an equally valid form of parenthood and part of a woman’s reproductive autonomy under Article 21.
• Additionally, the Court urged the Union Government to introduce paternity leave as a social security benefit, stressing that parenting is a shared responsibility.
Key Highlights of Judgment
• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The Court held that the provision violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) due to unreasonable classification and Article 21 (Right to Life & Dignity), including reproductive autonomy.
• Unreasonable and Arbitrary Classification: The age-based classification was declared unconstitutional as there is no intelligible differentia between mothers adopting children below or above three months, nor any rational nexus with maternity benefits.
• Motherhood Beyond Biology: The Court emphasized that motherhood is not merely biological but also emotional and social in nature. Adoption is an equally valid pathway to form a family, and adoptive mothers have the same rights and obligations as biological mothers.
• Purpose of Maternity Benefit: The Court clarified that maternity leave is linked to motherhood rather than childbirth and includes physical recovery, emotional bonding, and nurturing and integration of the child into the family. In adoption, emotional bonding and caregiving remain equally significant irrespective of the child’s age.
• Practical Ineffectiveness of the Law: Due to procedural requirements under adoption laws (such as CARA and the JJ Act), children are rarely adopted before three months of age. As a result, the provision becomes largely otiose and ineffective in real-world applications.
• Impact on Vulnerable Groups: The restriction disproportionately affects children with disabilities, who often take longer to be adopted, and single adoptive mothers who bear full caregiving responsibility. It may force women to choose between employment and childcare, defeating welfare objectives.
• Paternity Leave and Gender Equality: The Court strongly recommended broader legal recognition of paternity leave, emphasizing that parenting is a shared responsibility. The absence of such provisions reinforces gender stereotypes and denies fathers the opportunity for early bonding, despite limited existing provisions like 15 days’ leave for government servants.
Significance of the Judgment
• Strengthening Gender Equality: The judgment recognises motherhood beyond biology and reduces discrimination by ensuring equal rights for adoptive mothers.
• Expanding Reproductive Rights: It includes adoption within reproductive autonomy under Article 21 and broadens the concept of family and parenthood.
• Child-Centric Approach: It prioritises the best interest of the child over rigid legal classifications, ensuring holistic development and bonding.
• Workplace Justice & Welfare: It reinforces maternity leave as a human right and prevents exclusion of women, especially adoptive mothers, from the workforce.
• Push for Shared Parenting: It encourages paternity leave and promotes gender-neutral caregiving by recognising parenting as a shared responsibility.
• Realistic Lawmaking: It aligns legal provisions with the practical realities of adoption procedures to ensure effectiveness and relevance.