The Supreme Court on Tuesday held as unconstitutional a provision in the central law that disallows “maternity leave” to adoptive mothers if the age of the child is over three months.

The court also asked the Centre to consider evolving a “paternity leave” policy for
all fathers.

The apex court allowed a petition filed by an adoptive mother, Hamsaanandini Nanduri, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security that came into effect on November 21, 2025.

Now, only those women whose adopted child is less than three months old are
entitled to maternity leave of 12 weeks.

“Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code, in effect, operates unequally upon adoptive mothers who are similarly situated, resulting in discrimination without reasonable justification. As a necessary consequence, Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code violates the mandate of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. The classification under the Act is
palpably unreasonable and arbitrary,” Justice J.B. Pardiwala, who authored the judgment, observed.

“For all the foregoing reasons, we have reached the conclusion that Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code insofar it puts an age limit of three months on the age of the adoptive child, for the adoptive mothers to avail maternity benefit under the 2020 Code is violative of Articles 14, (equality) and 21 (life and liberty) of the Constitution respectively,” Justice J.B. Pardiwala, who authored the judgment, observed.

The court added: “We are of the view that the impugned provision, i.e., Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code, to the extent that it prescribes an age limit of three months, is discriminatory because first, it does not disclose a reasonable distinction between women who adopt a child below the age of three months and those who adopt a child aged three months or above. Secondly, the particular differentiation, which is sought to be made, has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Thirdly, the classification suffers from under-inclusiveness.”

The bench, which also had Justice R. Mahadevan, said the objective of maternity benefit is not associated with the biological process of childbirth alone but also takes into account a “holistic understanding of attainment of motherhood and consequent fulfilment of the role”.

“What flows from the aforesaid is that the need for economic security, institutional support and protection of dignity does not diminish merely on account of the age of the child at the time of adoption. The necessity of nurturing, care and family integration remains equally relevant and pressing irrespective of whether the adopted child is below or above the age of three months.

“...This disparity not only marginalises the role that adoptive parents play in the life of the child but also reduces the recognition of their responsibilities,” the court said.

Justice Pardiwala also referred to the lack of “paternity leave” for fathers, be it biological or adoptive, in the private and government sector, except for central government employees under the CCS rules.

The bench said the early months and years of a child’s life constitute a formative period during which emotional bonds, attachment and a sense of security begin to take shape and the presence of the father contributes significantly to the kid’s emotional and psychological well-being.

“The essence of the matter is simple, the presence of both parents during the early development of a child is indispensable. What a father offers to a child in those nascent days cannot be scheduled for a convenient time or compensated for later,” the bench observed.

“At present, Sections 43A and 43AA of the CCS (Leave) Rules, respectively, grant a male government servant 15 days of paternity leave for the birth of the child or for adoption. In light of the aforesaid discussion on the need of paternity leave, 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,” Justice Pardiwala said.