By Harsh Singh Dahiya, Advocate, Supreme Court of India | Partner, Sterling & Partners

On 17 March 2026, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered a judgment that fundamentally changed the legal landscape of maternity rights in India. In Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India, the Court struck down Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, insofar as it restricted maternity benefits for adoptive mothers to cases where the adopted child was below three months of age. The Court held that this age-based restriction violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution — the right to equality and the right to life — and rewrote the provision to extend maternity benefit to all adoptive mothers, irrespective of the age of the child at the time of adoption.

The decision resolves a long-standing statutory anomaly. It also expands the constitutional understanding of maternity rights in India — establishing that maternity protection extends to the process of becoming a mother through adoption, not merely to biological childbirth.

What Section 60(4) Said — and Why It Was Contested

The Statutory History: From the 2017 Amendment to the Social Security Code

The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is the foundational statute governing maternity leave and benefits in India. For most of its existence, it applied only to biological mothers. In 2017, Parliament amended the Act through the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, inserting Section 5(4), which extended maternity benefit to adoptive and commissioning mothers (mothers whose children are born through surrogacy) for a period of twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over to them — but only if the child was below the age of three months at the time of adoption.

When Parliament enacted the Code on Social Security, 2020, which consolidated multiple social security statutes including the Maternity Benefit Act, Section 5(4) was replicated as Section 60(4) of the Code. The operative text read: “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, as the case may be.”

The consequence of this provision was stark. A woman who adopted an infant of two months received twelve weeks of paid maternity leave. A woman who adopted an infant of four months received nothing — not a reduced entitlement, but zero benefit. The distinction rested entirely on the child’s age at the moment of handover.

The petitioner, Hamsaanandini Nanduri — an adoptive mother of two children — challenged the provision under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that the age-based restriction was arbitrary and violated her constitutional rights to equality, reproductive autonomy, and dignified participation in the workforce. The petition, originally framed against Section 5(4) of the 1961 Act, was later directed at Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code after the Code came into force on 21 November 2025.

The Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Court’s judgment rests on two constitutional pillars: the right to equality under Article 14, and the right to life and personal autonomy under Article 21.

On Article 14, the bench applied the rational nexus test established in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) and subsequent decisions. The Court examined whether the distinction between women who adopt children below three months and those who adopt children above three months had any rational connection to the object of the Social Security Code. It found none.

The object of maternity benefit, the Court held, “is not associated with the process of childbirth but with the process of motherhood.” Maternity leave serves three distinct purposes: first, time for the mother’s physical recovery after childbirth; second, time to build an emotional bond with the child; and third, time to attend to the child’s immediate developmental and caregiving needs and to facilitate the child’s integration into the new family. In cases of adoption, the first purpose is absent. The second and third purposes, the Court held, apply with equal force whether the child is two months or five months old.

The Court further observed that the three-month restriction was practically self-defeating. Under India’s adoption regulatory framework — governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) regulations — the process of declaring a child legally free for adoption, completing the mandatory waiting period, obtaining a court adoption order, and achieving physical handover typically takes well in excess of three months from the child’s birth. In practice, the Court said, the provision was “illusory and devoid of practical application” — most adoptions under the formal legal process would be ineligible for the very benefit the 2017 amendment purported to extend.

Reproductive Autonomy and Article 21

The Court also held the restriction unconstitutional under Article 21. It affirmed that reproductive autonomy — the right of a woman to choose how to become a mother — extends to adoption. Adoption is not a lesser form of parenthood, the Court emphasised. It is “an equal exercise of the right to reproductive and decisional autonomy under Article 21.” By penalising an adoptive mother for choosing adoption over biological childbirth, the provision struck at the constitutional dignity of adoptive families.

The Court further observed that the restriction operated particularly harshly on children with disabilities, who are disproportionately represented among older adoptable children in India, and on single adoptive mothers, who face the greatest vulnerability in the absence of maternity leave support.

Having found the restriction unconstitutional on both grounds, the Court took the unusual step of rewriting the provision rather than striking it down and referring the matter to Parliament. Section 60(4) as interpreted by the Supreme Court now reads: “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.” The age restriction has been excised entirely.

What Employers and Employees Need to Know

The Hamsaanandini Nanduri judgment creates immediate compliance obligations for employers covered by the Code on Social Security, 2020.

The Code applies to establishments employing ten or more persons in most sectors. Under the judgment, any woman employee who legally adopts a child — of any age — is now entitled to twelve weeks of paid maternity leave from the date of the child’s handover. There is no longer any age threshold. Commissioning mothers retain their twelve-week entitlement on the same terms.

Employers who continue to apply the pre-judgment text of Section 60(4) — that is, limiting maternity benefit to adoptions of children below three months — are exposed to legal liability. HR policies, employee handbooks, and payroll administration systems should be reviewed and updated immediately to reflect the Court’s interpretation.

For employees: if you have adopted or are in the process of adopting a child and your employer is refusing maternity benefit on the ground that the child was above three months at the time of adoption, that refusal is now unlawful. The remedy lies in a complaint before the relevant authority under the Social Security Code, or in appropriate legal proceedings.

The Supreme Court also urged the Central Government to introduce a provision recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit, noting that adoptive fathers — and indeed fathers in general — currently have no statutory entitlement to paid paternity leave under central legislation. This observation, while not a binding direction, signals where the Court expects legislative evolution to proceed.

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court struck down Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 in Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India on 17 March 2026, eliminating the three-month age cap on maternity benefit for adoptive mothers.
  • All adoptive mothers — irrespective of the child’s age at the time of adoption — are now entitled to twelve weeks of paid maternity leave from the date the child is handed over to them.
  • The Court held the restriction violated Article 14 (right to equality) because women adopting children above and below three months are similarly situated in terms of caregiving obligations, and the distinction had no rational nexus with the statute’s purpose.
  • The Court also held the restriction violated Article 21 (right to life and dignity), affirming that reproductive autonomy extends to adoption as an equal and constitutionally protected pathway to parenthood.
  • The Code on Social Security applies to establishments with ten or more employees. Employers should immediately update maternity benefit policies to reflect the court’s revised reading of Section 60(4).
  • The Court urged the government to legislate statutory paternity leave — a benefit currently absent from central social security law.

About Sterling & Partners
Sterling & Partners is a Supreme Court of India law firm with chambers at the Supreme Court complex, New Delhi, and an office at Greater Kailash-2. The firm advises on employment and labour law, constitutional litigation, and writ matters before the Supreme Court and High Courts. Employers or employees seeking to understand the implications of the Hamsaanandini Nanduri judgment may contact Sterling & Partners at sterlingpartners.law.