Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime

"A Child Who Is Born or Adopted Does Not Know What the Law Has Decided About the Presence of the Father — Yet the Quiet Cost of That Absence Is Later Reflected in Their Relationship", In a deeply humanistic observation that goes beyond the immediate dispute before it, the Supreme Court has called upon the Union of India to enact a law recognising paternity leave as a statutory social security benefit — urging that the duration of such leave must be determined keeping in mind the needs of both the parent and the child.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, while allowing a writ petition challenging the age restriction on maternity benefit for adoptive mothers, devoted a significant portion of its judgment to the institutional invisibility of a father's role in early childcare and the absence of meaningful paternity leave provisions in India's social security framework.

The Present State of Paternity Leave in India

The Court noted that under Rules 43-A and 43-AA of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, male government servants are entitled to only fifteen days of paternity leave — both for the birth of a child and for adoption of a child below the age of one year.

The Court found this provision reflective of a broader social assumption that has gone largely unquestioned — that caregiving and nurturing are responsibilities that belong almost exclusively to mothers.

"There exists a kind of injustice, although not deliberate, yet based on assumptions so deeply rooted that they have ceased to appear as injustice at all, and have come to be accepted as the natural order of things in society," the bench observed.

A Father's Absence Has Consequences That Cannot Be Made Up Later

The Court made observations of rare emotional depth on what a father's absence during a child's formative years truly costs — not merely to the father, but to the child.

"What a father offers to a child in those nascent days cannot be scheduled for a convenient time or compensated for later," the bench said.

The Court rejected the idea that professional absence during infancy can be offset by "devoted weekends." It noted that a child does not experience a father's absence as a legal or policy matter — it experiences it simply as the natural state of things.

"The child, in all likelihood, experiences the presence or absence of closeness, and the depth or shallowness of the bond, simply as the natural state of things between them. It does not know that the slightest distance it feels is not reflective of the care or affection that exists. The realization that one of its parents arrived a little late to the story because the law required him to be present at work is something the child may never consciously know, yet the quiet cost of that absence is later reflected in their relationship," the Court said.

Paternity Leave Dismantles Gendered Roles in Parenting

The Court identified two consequences produced by the absence of adequate paternity leave.

First, it reinforces gendered roles in parenting by communicating — through law itself — that early childcare is a woman's responsibility. Second, even where a father is willing and desirous of participating in early caregiving, the law leaves him without a meaningful opportunity to do so.

"When fathers are afforded the opportunity to take leave following the arrival of the child, they are able to support the mother and share family responsibilities. This support extends to participating in the upbringing and caregiving of the child, assisting with household responsibilities, and remaining emotionally present during this demanding phase," the bench observed.

The Court held that paternity leave serves an important social purpose — it helps dismantle gendered assumptions about parenting, fosters a balanced understanding of caregiving between parents, and promotes gender equality both within the family and at the workplace.

Proximity Is Not Presence

The Court drew an important distinction between a father being physically near and being genuinely present in the caregiving sense.

"Proximity is not identical to presence. A father who remains physically near yet is compelled by professional obligations to remain disengaged from early caregiving roles cannot truly participate in the formative experiences of a child's infancy," the bench noted.

The Court observed that fathers have traditionally been perceived as providers — with their responsibilities revolving around financial stability. As a consequence, financial care, because it does not resemble visible everyday nurturing, has historically been undervalued as a basis for recognising the need for leave.

Unpaid Care Work and the Gendered Burden on Women

The Court placed the paternity leave discussion in the broader context of the institutional invisibility of household and care work performed overwhelmingly by women.

Citing ILO studies, the Court noted that employed women on average work longer hours than employed men when both paid employment and unpaid domestic work are taken into account. This disparity reflects deeply entrenched gendered norms around domestic labour.

The Court noted the concept of the "Wollstonecraft Dilemma" — the tension between recognising women's caregiving role and ensuring their equal participation in the workforce. It observed that the law must acknowledge caregiving realities while simultaneously creating conditions for equality of opportunity.

"It would be unreasonable to treat women identically to men without acknowledging the social realities of the responsibilities undertaken at home. At the same time, it would be unjust if the law recognises differences without ensuring equality in opportunity," the bench said.

The Court held that paternity leave is one instrument through which this balance can be meaningfully struck — by enabling fathers to share caregiving responsibilities, the burden on women is reduced and their workforce participation is better supported.

A Private Member Bill — But No Law Yet

The Court took note of the fact that a private member Bill — The Paternity and Parental Benefit Bill, 2025 (Bill No. 82 of 2025) — had been introduced in Parliament, seeking eight weeks of paternity leave including for adopting fathers. However, no statutory law has yet been enacted.

"We are observant that certain efforts are being made towards recognising the need for such a provision," the Court noted, while making clear that the present state of only fifteen days of paternity leave under the CCS (Leave) Rules was wholly inadequate given the developmental importance of a father's early presence.

The Supreme Court urged the Union of India to come forward with a provision recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit applicable across the organised and unorganised sectors. The Court emphasised that the duration of such leave must be determined in a manner that is responsive to the genuine needs of both the parent and the child — and not merely as a token gesture.

The direction, while not a binding command to enact specific legislation, carries the weight of a constitutional court's recognition that the law's current silence on meaningful paternity leave is not neutral — it is a choice that perpetuates gendered caregiving norms and imposes quiet but lasting costs on children, fathers, and mothers alike.

Date of Decision: March 17, 2026