Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court has held that denying maternity benefits to a woman merely because she adopts a child aged three months or above is unconstitutional. Striking down the age restriction under Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, the Court ruled that eligible adoptive mothers are entitled to 12 weeks of maternity benefit from the date the child is handed over, regardless of the child's age at adoption. The Court found the earlier restriction discriminatory under Article 14 and inconsistent with the right to dignity and reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment has significant implications for employers, HR departments and payroll professionals administering maternity benefits.

The case arose from a challenge to the three-month age restriction imposed on adoptive mothers seeking maternity benefits. Under Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, introduced through the 2017 amendment, a woman legally adopting a child was entitled to 12 weeks of maternity benefit only when the adopted child was below three months of age. Following the implementation of the Code on Social Security, 2020, the corresponding provision became Section 60(4). The petitioner challenged this distinction, arguing that a woman adopting a child older than three months has the same responsibilities of caregiving, emotional bonding and family integration as a woman adopting a younger child. Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court The principal questions before the Court were: Whether restricting maternity benefits to mothers adopting children below three months of age violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. Whether the restriction interferes with reproductive autonomy, dignity and the rights of adoptive mothers and children under Article 21. Findings of the Supreme Court 1. Motherhood is not confined to biological childbirth The Supreme Court recognised that maternity protection serves a broader purpose than physical recovery after childbirth. It also provides time for a mother to establish an emotional bond with the child and discharge important caregiving responsibilities. These considerations are equally relevant in cases of adoption. 2. The three-month distinction is discriminatory The Court found no rational justification for granting maternity benefits to a woman adopting a two-month-old child while denying the same benefit to another woman adopting a child aged four months or above. Both mothers undertake comparable caregiving responsibilities. Therefore, the distinction was inconsistent with Article 14. 3. Adoption forms part of reproductive autonomy The Court recognised adoption as an exercise of reproductive and decisional autonomy protected under Article 21. A woman's decision to become a mother through adoption deserves constitutional protection. 4. The best interests of the child must receive priority An adopted child requires emotional security, family support and an opportunity to adjust to a new home. These needs do not disappear when the child crosses three months of age. The age-based restriction failed to adequately recognise the welfare and developmental needs of adopted children. 5. The earlier restriction was impractical The Court also considered the statutory adoption process. Since the procedures for declaring a child legally free for adoption and completing adoption formalities can take considerable time, restricting the benefit to children below three months could make the provision practically ineffective. Final Judgment The Supreme Court held that the three-month age restriction contained in Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court directed that the provision be meaningfully read without the three-month restriction. Accordingly, a woman who legally adopts a child is entitled to 12 weeks of maternity benefit from the date the child is handed over, subject to the other applicable statutory requirements. The Court also urged the Union Government to introduce appropriate legislative recognition of paternity leave as a social security benefit. The writ petition was allowed. Implications for Employers and HR Professionals This judgment is particularly important for establishments employing women who may become mothers through adoption. Employers should review maternity benefit policies that restrict adoption-related benefits to children below three months of age. HR departments should ensure that applications for maternity benefits are not rejected merely because the adopted child has crossed that age. Establishments should also update internal policies, leave administration procedures and relevant payroll processes to reflect the Supreme Court's interpretation. The judgment does not increase the existing 12-week benefit for adoptive mothers or dispense with other statutory eligibility conditions. Further, the Court's observation concerning paternity leave is a recommendation to the Union Government and does not, by itself, establish a new universal statutory paternity leave entitlement