What Happened
- On March 17, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (as amended in 2017), which restricted 12 weeks of maternity leave to adoptive mothers only if the adopted child was below three months of age.
- A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held in Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India that the three-month age cap created an unreasonable classification and violated Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
- The court ruled that the needs of an adopted child are no different from those of a biological child, and that legal and procedural delays in the adoption process make it practically impossible to adopt a child under three months old.
- The bench held that all adoptive mothers, irrespective of the age of the child at the time of adoption, must receive 12 weeks of maternity benefit.
- The Supreme Court additionally urged the Union government to enact a law recognizing paternity leave as a social security benefit.
Static Topic Bridges
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and the 2017 Amendment
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is a central legislation under the Concurrent List (List III, Entry 24: Welfare of Labour) that regulates employment conditions of women before and after childbirth and provides for maternity benefit — a paid leave entitlement. The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 significantly enhanced the Act, extending paid maternity leave from 12 to 26 weeks for mothers with fewer than two surviving children, and introduced benefits for commissioning and adoptive mothers for the first time via Section 5(4). However, Section 5(4) contained the restrictive age-of-child clause that was now struck down.
- Original Act: 1961; Ministry: Labour and Employment.
- 2017 Amendment: Key changes — increased leave from 12 to 26 weeks; introduced work-from-home option (Section 5(5)); mandatory creche facility in establishments with 50+ employees (Section 11A).
- Section 5(4) (2017): Adoptive and commissioning mothers entitled to 12 weeks leave only if adopted child is below three months.
- Section 5(4) (post-judgment): Age cap removed — 12 weeks leave applies regardless of the child's age at adoption.
- The Act applies to establishments with 10 or more employees in mines, factories, plantations, and other specified industries.
Connection to this news: The SC judgment effectively rewrites Section 5(4) by reading down the three-month restriction as unconstitutional, directing that maternity benefits apply to all adoptive mothers uniformly.
Article 14: Right to Equality and the Doctrine of Reasonable Classification
Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. While Article 14 does not prohibit classification, it requires that any classification must: (i) be founded on an intelligible differentia (a real and distinct difference between the groups classified), and (ii) have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. A classification that fails either test is struck down as arbitrary and void.
- The twin-test of classification originates from State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) and was refined in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), which held that arbitrariness itself is antithetical to equality.
- The SC applied the Article 14 twin-test: the age-of-child classification had no rational nexus to the purpose of the Act (securing maternal bonding and child welfare).
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) expanded Article 14 to strike at arbitrary State action; the SC used similar reasoning here.
- The right to equality is a fundamental right under Part III; violation renders the provision void under Article 13(1).
Connection to this news: The court found that distinguishing adoptive mothers based on whether their child is above or below three months old is an arbitrary and unintelligible differentia with no rational nexus to the purpose of maternity welfare legislation.
Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty — Expanding Contours
Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Since Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 expansively to include a wide range of rights — the right to livelihood, right to health, right to dignity, and the right to a meaningful family life. The court in this case held that denying maternity benefits to adoptive mothers based on the child's age violated their right to dignity and the right to foster a bond with their adopted child — both protected under Article 21.
- Article 21 originally interpreted narrowly (A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950); expanded to include substantive due process post-Maneka Gandhi (1978).
- Right to privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017) also flows from Article 21, and includes the right to make personal choices about family formation.
- Adoption is governed by the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for Hindus) and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for all religions) — both legally equate the adopted child with a biological child.
- The JJ Act, 2015, Section 2(2): "Adopted child" is a child who has been legally adopted following due process and is deemed a child of the adoptive parents for all purposes.
Connection to this news: The judgment grounds the right to maternity benefit in Article 21, reinforcing that the State cannot legislate in a manner that undermines the dignity of adoptive motherhood or the welfare of the adopted child.
Article 42: Directive Principle on Maternity Relief
Article 42 of the Constitution (Part IV — Directive Principles of State Policy) directs the State to make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief. While DPSPs are non-justiciable (cannot be directly enforced in court), they are fundamental to governance and must guide the State in making laws. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is the primary legislative instrument implementing Article 42. Courts use DPSPs to interpret the scope and content of fundamental rights, creating a harmonious relationship between Parts III and IV.
- Article 42 falls under Part IV (Articles 36–51): Non-justiciable but binding on legislative and executive policy.
- Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993): Established that Part III rights must be read harmoniously with Part IV DPSPs.
- The SC has held that maternity benefit is not charity — it is a social security entitlement rooted in Article 42.
- Also relevant: Article 39(e) directs the State to protect the health and strength of workers (including women) from abuse.
Connection to this news: The court's direction to extend maternity benefits to all adoptive mothers is consistent with the State's constitutional obligation under Article 42 to provide comprehensive maternity relief without arbitrary exclusions.
Key Facts & Data
- Case: Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India, decided March 17, 2026.
- Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.
- Provision struck down: Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (age-of-child restriction for adoptive mothers).
- Current maternity leave entitlement: 26 weeks for first two children (biological); 12 weeks for adoptive/commissioning mothers (now age-unrestricted).
- Articles invoked: Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (right to life and dignity).
- Constitutional mandate: Article 42 (DPSP) — State to provide maternity relief.
- The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 legally equates adopted and biological children.
- India has approximately 3,000–4,000 legal adoptions processed annually through CARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority).
- The SC also called for a paternity leave law — India currently has no universal statutory paternity leave for private sector employees.