Supreme Court Holds Age‑based Restriction On Maternity Benefits For Adoptive Mothers Unconstitutional

In Hamsaanandini Nanduri v Union of India and Others (2026 INSC 246), the Supreme Court of India (Court) held that Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 (SS Code) is unconstitutional insofar as it limits maternity benefits for adoptive mothers to cases where the adopted child is below three months of age, marking a significant development in the interpretation of maternity and parental benefits under Indian employment law.

Legislative Framework

The SS Code, which repealed and replaced the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, governs maternity and related benefits for women employees and applies to establishments employing 10 or more employees at any point in the preceding 12 months. Amongst others, the SS Code provides for paid maternity leave not only in cases of childbirth, but also for adoptive mothers and commissioning mothers.

Under Section 60(4) of the SS Code, a female employee who legally adopts a child below the age of three months, or a commissioning mother, is entitled to 12 weeks’ paid maternity leave from the date the child is handed over to the employee.

Background

The petitioner, an adoptive mother of two children, initially challenged the validity of the age‑based restriction under Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act by way of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to amend her writ petition to directly challenge Section 60(4) of the SS Code following the enactment of the SS Code on 21 November 2025, which retained the same age threshold for adoptive mothers.

In support of her claim, the petitioner argued that:

• Section 60(4) of the SS Code creates an unreasonable classification that bears no rational nexus to the object of maternity benefits;
• denying maternity leave to adoptive mothers of children older than three months undermines the purpose of enabling caregiving and family integration during a critical period for the child; and
• as adoption is an exercise of reproductive choice, the impugned provision violates the right to dignity and motherhood under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In response, the Union of India submitted that Section 60(4) of the SS Code represents a proportionate balance between employee rights and employer interests and must be viewed in the context of the broader maternity benefits framework under the SS Code and that Section 60(4). In particular, the Union submitted that younger children require a higher degree of dependency and that adoptive mothers of older children could rely on crèche facilities mandated under Section 67 of the SS Code.

Decision

The Supreme Court struck down Section 60(4) of the SS Code to the extent of the age‑based restriction. In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court made the following key observations:

• Unreasonable classification. The Supreme Court held that the distinction between adoptive mothers based on whether the child is below or above three months of age is arbitrary and lacks any rational connection with the purpose of maternity benefits. All adoptive mothers are similarly placed in terms of caregiving responsibilities, irrespective of the child’s age. The provision therefore violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Maternity benefits extend beyond childbirth: The Supreme Court emphasised that maternity benefits are not confined to the biological act of giving birth. They are rooted in the broader concept of motherhood and caregiving. The Court observed that although physical recovery following childbirth may not apply in cases of adoption, the need for bonding and integration of the child into the family is often more pronounced.
• Adoption as reproductive autonomy. The Court affirmed that reproductive autonomy under Article 21 is not limited to biological reproduction. Adoption represents a conscious decision to form a family and falls squarely within the constitutional protection of personal liberty and dignity.
• Provision rendered unworkable in practice: The Court noted that any beneficial labour legislation must be capable of meaningful implementation and must not be defeated by practical realities. Given the time‑consuming adoption process in India, the three‑month threshold effectively renders the benefit illusory in many cases.

Key Takeaways

This decision, which has significant implications for employers across sectors, reflect an evolving judicial approach that recognises shared caregiving responsibilities. With age‑based restriction under Section 60(4) of the SS Code having been struck down, employers are now required to provide 12 weeks’ paid maternity leave to adoptive mothers regardless of the age of the adopted child.

Employers may wish to review and update their maternity benefit policies to ensure compliance, particularly where policies continue to reflect the position under the repealed Maternity Benefit Act. More broadly, the Court’s observations reflect an evolving judicial approach that recognises shared caregiving responsibilities. In this context, employers may also consider adopting or expanding paternity leave or gender‑neutral parental leave policies to support inclusive workforce practices and reduce the disproportionate caregiving burden on women.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.