While the Supreme Court has expanded caregiving rights, the State’s silence on paternity leave remains a barrier to both child development and gender equality.
The Supreme Court has read down restrictions on maternity benefits for adoptive mothers under the Code on Social Security, 2020. But parenthood is not a solitary function; a father’s absence during the formative years deprives a child of an early bonding opportunity. The court thus urged the government to introduce paternity leave as a social security benefit. While the judiciary has long strengthened mothers’ rights, the State has failed to extend a similar benefit to fathers.
This gap directly affects a child’s development. Without income-protected leave, parents struggle to devote adequate time to bonding and caregiving, which results in behavioural issues in children, as has been confirmed by a longitudinal study. The court also pointed out that a father who is physically present but professionally disengaged cannot truly participate in bonding during a child’s infancy.
Even after consolidating several labour laws into the 2020 Code, the legislature left paternal leave largely unaddressed. Presently, Rule 43A of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 provides leave benefits to male employees with Central jobs. However, the rule imposes significant constraints by limiting leave to the period surrounding childbirth. Also, no uniform framework exists nationwide. This gap has left the private sector with voluntary policies. Zomato offers 26 weeks of gender neutral leave but most employees have no such safety net.
Studies show that fathers often hesitate to take paternity leave when it threatens household income. The breadwinner mindset is particularly harsh for Indian families because a father’s unpaid time off leaves the responsibility of caregiving disproportionately with mothers. The Periodic Labour Force Survey shows that male workforce participation rates are roughly twice those of women, making unpaid leave a threat to household stability.
Countries like Spain have moved towards equalising caregiving by granting non-transferable parental paid leave of equal duration. Spain also offers enhanced support to single parents. Similarly, Norway’s ‘use-it-or-lose-it’ paternity quota shows that when leave is fully secured and adequately paid to fathers, participation rises significantly. These models show that meaningful paternal involvement is not merely cultural—it is shaped by law.
Even as the court expands the right to paternal bonding by allowing prisoners’ paternity parole to establish an emotional connection with their children, no comparable protection exists for ordinary citizens. Equalising caregiving would also reduce hiring bias as mandatory parental leave prevents women from being perceived as more costly hires. Therefore, uniform paternity leave is also a tool for gender equality in the workforce.
In 2017, Parliament missed a critical opportunity when a private member’s bill concerning paternity benefits lapsed. However, the 2025 Paternity and Parental Benefits Bill provides a blueprint for near-future reforms. In addition to the 15 days of paternity leave, the Bill promises eight weeks of paid parental leave that both parents can share. To operationalise these benefits, it proposes establishing the Parental Benefit Scheme Fund. The legislature should now look at this proposal, alongside successful models implemented in Spain and Norway, to codify a uniform law.