The Supreme Court has held that Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, to the extent that it prescribes an age limit of three months for the adopted child for an adoptive mother to be eligible for maternity benefits, is discriminatory and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that the classification based on the child’s age does not have a rational nexus with the object of the statute, which is to support motherhood and ensure the well-being of the child. The provision is under-inclusive, fails to recognize adoption as an exercise of reproductive autonomy, disregards the best interests of the child, and is practically unworkable given the timelines of the adoption process.
Therefore, the Apex Court read down the provision to remove the unconstitutional age restriction, holding that it should be meaningfully read as: “A woman who legally adopts a child 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, as the case may be”.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that the purpose of maternity benefit legislation is to dignify motherhood, safeguard maternal well-being, and ensure the continued participation of women in the workforce. The benefit is not solely associated with the biological process of childbirth but with a holistic understanding of attaining motherhood.
The Bench applied the test of permissible classification, which requires that any differentiation must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. It found that the distinction between mothers adopting a child under three months and those adopting a child over three months is artificial and has no rational nexus to the object of the 2020 Code. The roles, responsibilities, and caregiving obligations of adoptive mothers are the same regardless of the child’s age at adoption.
Further, the Bench held that the classification is under-inclusive because it confers a benefit on some adoptive mothers while excluding others who are similarly situated, without a valid justification. This disparity marginalizes the role of parents adopting older children and overlooks the significant emotional and psychological adjustments required for both the child and the parents. The argument that mothers of older adopted children can use crèche facilities was dismissed as flawed, as such facilities are not a substitute for maternity leave and are not universally available.
On the violation of ‘Right to Life and Dignity, the Bench affirmed that reproductive autonomy, protected under Article 21, is not limited to biological reproduction but also includes the choice to build a family through adoption. By imposing an age limit, the impugned provision denudes adoptive mothers of their right to decisional autonomy, dignity, and bodily integrity.
Furthermore, the Bench emphasized the principle of the ‘best interest of the child’, which is a paramount consideration in all matters concerning children and is a continuing obligation post-adoption. This principle requires ensuring the child can meaningfully adjust, bond, and flourish in the new family environment. The period immediately following adoption is critical for this integration. Denying maternity benefits based on an arbitrary age limit undermines the child’s welfare by failing to support this crucial bonding period.
On the workability of the impugned provision of the 2020 Code, the Bench examined the practical application of the provision and found it to be largely unworkable. It analysed the timelines prescribed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Adoption Regulations, 2022. The legal process to declare a child ‘legally free for adoption’ takes a minimum of two months for a surrendered child and can be longer for an orphaned or abandoned child. Consequently, by the time an adoption is finalized, the child is highly unlikely to be under the three-month age limit. This renders the benefit practically unattainable and makes the law illusory for the intended beneficiaries.
Briefly, the petitioner, an adoptive mother of two children, filed a public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the constitutionality of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as amended by the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017. When this provision was subsequently amended and consolidated into Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, which came into effect on Nov 21, 2025, the petitioner was granted permission to amend the writ petition to challenge the new provision, Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code. The impugned provision entitles a woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months to maternity benefits for a period of twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over. The petitioner’s challenge was limited to the extent this provision governs adoptive mothers, arguing it is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
Appearances:
AOR M/s. Mukesh Kumar Singh And Co., along with Advocates Bani Dikshit, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Kishan Kumar, Uddhav Khanna, Dhruva Vig, Narendra Kumar Goyal, Santanu Jugtawat, Kadam Hans, Komal Singh, Subodh, Ikshit Singhal, and Harsh Chaturvedi, for the Appellants
AOR Amrish Kumar along with Advocates Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Vatsal Joshi, and Praneet Pranav, for the Respondents
