Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India
“Motherhood Beyond Biology: Age Cap on Maternity Leave for Adoptive Mothers Struck Down”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court struck down Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 (previously Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961), which restricted maternity leave to women adopting children below three months of age. The Court held the age restriction violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, declaring that adoptive mothers are entitled to 12 weeks of maternity benefit irrespective of the age of the child at adoption. The bench ruled that motherhood is defined by care and responsibility, not by the biological act of giving birth alone, and that adoption is an equal exercise of reproductive and decisional autonomy.
The Bottom Line
If you are an adoptive mother, you are now entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave regardless of the age of the child you adopt. The Supreme Court has declared that the old rule limiting this benefit to mothers adopting children under three months is unconstitutional. Motherhood is defined by care and bonding, not biology, and adoptive mothers have the same rights as biological mothers when it comes to maternity benefits.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Maternity Benefit Amendment Act, 2017 Enacted
Section 5(4) inserted into the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, granting 12 weeks maternity leave to adoptive mothers but only for children below three months of age.
Maternity Benefit Amendment Act, 2017 Enacted
Section 5(4) inserted into the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, granting 12 weeks maternity leave to adoptive mothers but only for children below three months of age.
Writ Petition Filed by Hamsaanandini Nanduri
The petitioner, an adoptive mother of two children, filed Writ Petition (C) No. 960 of 2021 under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act.
Writ Petition Filed by Hamsaanandini Nanduri
The petitioner, an adoptive mother of two children, filed Writ Petition (C) No. 960 of 2021 under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act.
Code on Social Security, 2020 Comes into Force
The Code on Social Security, 2020 came into effect, consolidating social security laws. Section 5(4) of the MB Act was replaced by Section 60(4) of the new Code with the same three-month restriction.
Code on Social Security, 2020 Comes into Force
The Code on Social Security, 2020 came into effect, consolidating social security laws. Section 5(4) of the MB Act was replaced by Section 60(4) of the new Code with the same three-month restriction.
Court Permits Amendment of Petition
The Supreme Court granted permission to amend the writ petition to challenge Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 on the same grounds as the original challenge.
Court Permits Amendment of Petition
The Supreme Court granted permission to amend the writ petition to challenge Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 on the same grounds as the original challenge.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Age Restriction
The Supreme Court declared Section 60(4) unconstitutional to the extent it limits maternity benefit to adoptive mothers of children below three months, holding it violates Articles 14 and 21.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Age Restriction
The Supreme Court declared Section 60(4) unconstitutional to the extent it limits maternity benefit to adoptive mothers of children below three months, holding it violates Articles 14 and 21.
The Story
Hamsaanandini Nanduri, an adoptive mother of two children, filed a public interest writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as inserted by the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017. This provision granted 12 weeks of maternity leave only to women who legally adopt a child below the age of three months, completely excluding adoptive mothers of older children from any maternity benefit.
The petitioner argued that the three-month age cap was arbitrary and discriminatory. She pointed out that the adoption process itself, governed by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and CARA Regulations, 2022, typically takes at least two to three months before a child can even be declared "free for adoption," making the three-month window practically impossible to meet.
During the pendency of the petition, the Code on Social Security, 2020 came into force on 21 November 2025, consolidating various social security laws. Section 5(4) of the old Act was replaced by Section 60(4) of the new Code, which was a pari materia (identical in substance) provision retaining the same three-month age restriction. On 12 December 2025, the Court granted the petitioner permission to amend the writ petition to challenge the new provision on the same grounds. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 33856/2026 accordingly.
The Union of India, through Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, defended the provision, arguing that children above three months do not have the same "intensive dependency" on caregivers as younger infants, that creche facilities under Section 67 of the Code could serve as an alternative, and that the provision struck a reasonable balance between adoptive mothers' rights and employer concerns. The petitioner's counsel, Ms. Bani Dikshit, countered that the distinction was scientifically unsound, practically unworkable, and constitutionally impermissible.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Three-month age cap violates Article 14 by creating arbitrary classification
The petitioner argued that the distinction between adoptive mothers of children below and above three months is artificial and lacks any rational nexus to the legislative object. The "bright-line test" fails because no reasonable distinction exists between mothers on either side of this threshold. Women who adopt children above three months have the same caregiving responsibilities, obligations, and need for bonding time.
Adoption timeline makes the three-month window practically impossible
The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and CARA Regulations, 2022 require a minimum of two months for a child to be legally declared "free for adoption," plus additional time for statutory procedures. This makes the three-month window effectively otiose, as adoption of a child under three months is practically unachievable under existing legal frameworks.
The provision violates Article 21 by denying reproductive autonomy and the right to wholesome motherhood
Denying maternity leave to adoptive mothers of older children undermines the right to motherhood, which includes emotional bonding and child integration. It also violates the adopted child's right to full development and sufficient care during the critical transition period from institutional care to family life.
Age restriction discourages adoption and limits women's right to profession
The provision violates Article 19(1)(g) by discouraging working professionals from adopting children, effectively forcing women to choose between their career and their desire to adopt. It reduces overall adoption rates and harms children awaiting families, particularly children with disabilities who wait considerably longer for adoption.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Children above three months lack the same intensive dependency on caregivers
The Additional Solicitor General argued that children older than three months do not require the same level of continuous feeding, sleep regulation, and parental imprinting as younger infants. The provision reflects a developmental distinction justifying different treatment based on the child's age.
Creche facilities under Section 67 provide an adequate alternative
The Union argued that adoptive mothers of older children can access creche facilities under Section 67 of the Code on Social Security, 2020, which requires establishments with 50 or more employees to provide childcare facilities. This was presented as a suitable substitute for maternity leave.
The provision strikes a reasonable balance between mothers' rights and employer concerns
The respondent contended that the three-month age limit represents a proportionate balancing of adoptive mothers' interests against the legitimate concerns of employers regarding extended employee absence, and satisfies principles of proportionality.
Expedited adoption procedures can meet the three-month window
The Union argued that the adoption timeline concern was overstated because district magistrates and additional district magistrates have powers to issue adoption orders quickly, making it possible for adoptions to be completed within the statutory timeframe.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court conducted a comprehensive constitutional analysis of the three-month age restriction on maternity leave for adoptive mothers. The Court first established a foundational framework identifying three components of maternity leave: physical recovery (applicable only to biological mothers), emotional bonding, and family integration (both applicable equally to adoptive mothers). Drawing extensively on international human rights instruments (UDHR, ICESCR, ILO Conventions, CEDAW, CRC) and domestic judicial precedent, the Court held that motherhood is defined by care and responsibility rather than biology alone. Applying the Article 14 classification doctrine, the Court found that adoptive mothers of children above and below three months are "similarly situated" with respect to the legislative purpose, and that the age restriction bore no rational nexus to the statutory objective of enabling bonding and child integration. The Court rejected the creche alternative as fundamentally different from maternity leave, noted the disproportionate impact on children with disabilities and single adoptive mothers, and declared the provision under-inclusive and palpably arbitrary. The Court also held that the provision violated Article 21 by restricting reproductive autonomy, which encompasses adoption as an equal expression of the right to parenthood.
Transition into motherhood does not occur in brief moment when legal formalities completed, rather it is gradual process that takes shape in heart of mother.
Para 1
Sets the philosophical foundation of the judgment, recognizing motherhood as an evolving emotional process rather than a singular legal or biological event.
Protection of maternity leave is basic human right, as it recognizes conditions necessary for full development of human personality and realization of equality.
Para 21
Elevates maternity protection to the status of a fundamental human right grounded in dignity, equality, and human development.
Commonly drawn distinction between mother who begets child through surrogacy or adoption and mother who naturally gives birth perceives motherhood through narrow lens of biology.
Para 52
Directly challenges the biological-only understanding of motherhood and establishes that the bond formed outside the womb is as crucial and intimate as the one formed inside it.
Essential attributes, capacities, and commitments of adoptive mothers do not undergo any material change merely on account of child's age at adoption.
Para 80
The core finding on the "similarly situated" test under Article 14, holding that the age of the adopted child does not alter the adoptive mother's role, responsibilities, or need for maternity leave.
Section 60(4) of 2020 Code violates mandate of equality enshrined under Article 14. Classification under Act is palpably unreasonable and arbitrary.
Para 92
The definitive constitutional holding declaring the provision unconstitutional on equality grounds.
Provision of creche facilities within establishment is not substitute for maternity leave. Maternity leave serves distinct purpose.
Para 96
Rejects the government's argument that creche facilities are an adequate alternative to maternity leave, holding they serve fundamentally different purposes.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The age restriction on maternity leave for adoptive mothers is invalidated. All adoptive mothers are now entitled to 12 weeks of maternity benefit regardless of the adopted child's age at the time of adoption, equalizing their rights with mothers who adopt children below three months.
Directions Issued
- Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 (previously Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961) is to be read as entitling women who legally adopt a child of any age to 12 weeks of maternity benefit from the date the child is handed over
- The three-month age restriction is struck down as unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
- The Union of India is urged to create legislation recognizing paternity leave as a social security benefit, with duration determined responsively to parental and child needs
Key Legal Principles Established
Motherhood is defined by care and responsibility rather than by the biological act of giving birth alone. The bond developed outside the womb is as crucial and intimate as the bond formed inside it.
Maternity leave has three components: physical recovery (biological mothers only), emotional bonding, and family integration. The latter two apply equally to adoptive mothers regardless of the child's age.
The right of reproductive autonomy under Article 21 is not confined to biological childbirth. Adoption is an equal exercise of the right to reproductive and decisional autonomy.
An adopted child is no different from a natural child. The only distinction is that adoption is more visible and legally acknowledged.
Creche facilities are not a substitute for maternity leave. They serve fundamentally different purposes and maternity benefits cannot be made contingent on the size of the establishment.
Classification in social welfare legislation must pass a heightened degree of justification under Article 14. Under-inclusive provisions that exclude similarly situated beneficiaries are unconstitutional.
The best interests of the child must remain paramount throughout the integration period, and denying maternity leave based on the child's age at adoption operates to the detriment of children with disabilities and those in institutional care.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If you adopt a child of any age, you are now entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave from the date the child is handed over to you. The old restriction limiting this to children under three months has been struck down.
- Adoptive motherhood carries the same legal recognition as biological motherhood. You cannot be denied maternity benefits simply because your child came to you through adoption rather than birth.
- Your employer cannot refuse you maternity leave on the ground that the child you adopted is older than three months. The Supreme Court has declared this restriction unconstitutional.
- If you are a single adoptive mother, the Court specifically recognized that you bear the entire responsibility of integrating the child and are especially deserving of maternity leave protection.
- Creche facilities at your workplace are not a replacement for your maternity leave entitlement. These are separate benefits serving different purposes.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 14
Constitution of India
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
Relevance: The primary ground for striking down the provision. The Court held that the three-month age restriction created an arbitrary and under-inclusive classification among adoptive mothers with no rational nexus to the legislative purpose.
Article 21
Constitution of India
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Relevance: The Court held that Article 21 encompasses the right to reproductive autonomy, which includes adoption as an equal exercise of the right to parenthood. The age restriction violated the right to wholesome motherhood and the child's right to adequate care.
Article 42
Constitution of India
“The State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief.”
Relevance: Directive Principle obligating the State to provide maternity relief, which the Court used to reinforce the constitutional importance of maternity benefits as a social security measure.
Article 19(1)(g)
Constitution of India
“All citizens shall have the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.”
Relevance: The petitioner argued that the age restriction limits women's right to carry on their profession by forcing them to choose between employment and adopting older children.
Article 32
Constitution of India
“The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.”
Relevance: Jurisdictional basis for the writ petition filed directly in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the statutory provision.
Statutory Provisions
Section 60(4)
Code on Social Security, 2020
“A woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mother.”
Relevance: The impugned provision. The three-month age restriction was declared unconstitutional and the section must now be read to entitle all adoptive mothers to 12 weeks of maternity benefit regardless of the child's age.
Section 5(4)
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
“A woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months or a commissioning mother shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mother or the commissioning mother.”
Relevance: The original provision challenged, inserted by the 2017 Amendment Act. Replaced by Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code but struck down on the same grounds.
Section 67
Code on Social Security, 2020
“Every establishment having fifty or more employees shall have the facility of creche within such distance as may be prescribed.”
Relevance: The Union argued creche facilities under this section could substitute for maternity leave. The Court rejected this argument, holding that creche facilities and maternity leave serve fundamentally different purposes.
General
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
“Governs the care, protection, and adoption of children in need.”
Relevance: The petitioner relied on this Act to demonstrate that adoption timelines make the three-month window practically impossible, as the statutory process itself takes months before a child can be declared free for adoption.
Related Cases & Precedents
Deepika Singh v. PGIMER, Chandigarh
followed(2023) 13 SCC 681
Established that courts must adopt purposive interpretation of maternity benefit laws, and that atypical family structures are equally deserving of protection. Held that the black letter of the law must not disadvantage non-traditional families.
B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court
followed(1977) 4 SCC 384
Established that maternity leave serves multiple social justice purposes: mother's physical recovery, child's nurturing and care, and restoring the mother's efficiency. Beneficial legislation must be interpreted to achieve these objectives.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers
followed(2000) 3 SCC 224
Held that mothers are entitled to special care at the workplace and the Maternity Benefit Act ensures women are treated with dignity and protected from victimization due to maternity-related absence.
In re: Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 6-A
followed(2024) 16 SCC 105
Established the four-part framework for assessing under-inclusiveness and over-inclusiveness in classification, and the doctrine that the degree of justification depends on the subject-matter of the law.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
cited(2018) 10 SCC 1
Established that less deference is owed to classifications involving innate and core traits of individuals, requiring higher judicial scrutiny of such provisions.
Rama Pandey v. Union of India
cited2015 SCC OnLine Del 10484
Delhi High Court held that except physiological changes, all challenges in rearing a child are common for all mothers, and the concept of maternity leave should rest upon motherhood and welfare of the child.
State v. Ravina Yadav
cited2024 SCC OnLine Del 4987
Cited scientific research showing children from orphanages have vastly different stress hormone levels compared to parent-raised peers, emphasizing the lasting effects of early maternal deprivation on brain development.
K. Umadevi v. State of Tamil Nadu
cited(2025) 8 SCC 263
Interpreted "two surviving children" to mean children in mother's lawful custody, demonstrating that broader social welfare goals must be harmonized with statutory provisions through purposive interpretation.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.