Supreme Court Expands Maternity Benefit to All Adoptive Mothers

On March 17, 2026, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) in the case of Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India, struck down the rule that granted only three-month maternity leave to women adopting children older than three months. The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the law’s three-month cut-off created an “artificial” distinction between adoptive mothers, noting that women adopting older children are “similarly situated” in terms of their “roles, responsibilities and caregiving obligations”.

1. Background:

The parliament extended maternity benefits to adoptive and commissioning mothers through the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017. It was later subsumed into the Code on Social Security, 2020 (SS Code). Only a woman who adopted a child below the age of three months was entitled to twelve weeks of maternity benefit. The petitioner, an adoptive mother of two children, challenged this as inter alia violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The government argued that a child older than three months does not carry the intensive dependency on the caregiver and the creche facilities under Section 67 of the SS Code offer an adequate alternative.

2. Reasoning of the Court:

The Supreme Court rejected the contention of the government. The court noted that creche obligation only arises with 50 or more employees, and a facility for daytime care is not a substitute for the presence of a mother during the initial period of family integration.

The Supreme Court set out in detail the adoption timeline under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, framed by the Central Adoption Resource Authority. A child cannot be placed for adoption until they have been declared “legally free” for the process. If the biological parents surrender a child, the reconsideration period consists of 60 days; for abandoned or orphaned children below the age of two years, the authorities must spend at least two months tracing biological parents before any adoption proceedings can begin. The court held that “by the time the child is legally placed with the adoptive mother, the statutory age limit would, in most cases, stand exhausted.” It was also observed that the statute “ostensibly confers maternity benefit upon adoptive mothers, yet the benefit remains largely inaccessible in practice.”

The government responded that empowering district magistrates to issue adoption orders will accelerate the process. However, the Supreme Court rejected the suggestion that procedural expedition could be purchased at the cost of safeguards designed to protect the biological family’s rights.

3. Constitutional Provisions:

The Supreme Court did not find the conditions of classification of groups based on ‘intelligible differentia’ under Article 14 of the Constitution. Instead, it was held that women who adopt children older than three months are, in every relevant sense, in the same position as women who adopt younger infants and their “roles, responsibilities, and caregiving obligations” are identical. The Supreme Court further identified that mothers adopting children younger than three months received twelve weeks of leave, mothers adopting children even a day older had no benefits extended to them.

In addition, the Supreme Court stated that the distinction created by the SS Code under Section 60 (4), must have a rational nexus with the intention and object of the SS Code. It held that the object and intention of the SS Code is not associated with the biological process of childbirth alone but also takes into account a holistic understanding of attainment of motherhood and consequent fulfillment of the role.

The Supreme Court, under Article 21, which grants the right to life and personal liberty, stated that right to reproductive autonomy extends beyond biological parenthood. By imposing an arbitrary age limit, the law “denudes such adoptive mothers of the ability to meaningfully exercise and enjoy their right to decisional autonomy, dignity, and bodily integrity.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling represents a progressive step in India’s social security landscape. In dismantling this arbitrary classification, the judgment ensures that maternity benefits fulfill their core objective to support caregiving, protect dignity, and priorities welfare of the child. This ruling marks a fundamental shift toward a more inclusive and empathetic legal framework that recognizes the diverse ways Indian families are built today.