Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code

"Motherhood Is Ultimately Shaped Through Affection and Selfless Care, Not Through Blood Alone", Supreme Court has struck down the three-month age cap on the adopted child under Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, holding that adoptive mothers who adopt children above the age of three months are equally entitled to twelve weeks of maternity benefit.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, allowing a writ petition filed by adoptive mother Hamsaanandini Nanduri, held the age restriction to be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court read down Section 60(4) to remove the age limit entirely, directing that all adoptive mothers — irrespective of the age of the adopted child — shall be entitled to maternity benefit for twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over to them.

The Court also urged the Union of India to enact a law recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit.

Background

Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 — which is the consolidated successor to Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 as amended in 2017 — entitled a woman to maternity benefit of twelve weeks only if she legally adopts a child below the age of three months.

The petitioner, an adoptive mother of two children, challenged this provision as unconstitutional on the ground that it discriminated against women who adopt children above three months without any rational basis.

The Union of India defended the provision, contending that a child older than three months does not have the same intensive dependency on the caregiver and that women adopting older children could avail crèche facilities under Section 67 of the 2020 Code.

The Three-Month Limit Has No Rational Nexus with the Purpose of Maternity Benefit

The Court examined the components of maternity leave carefully — identifying three distinct elements: physical recovery after childbirth; emotional bonding between mother and child; and family integration of the child.

The Court acknowledged that the first component — physical recovery — is absent in adoption. However, the second and third are equally present and significant regardless of the age of the adopted child.

"The need for economic security, institutional support, and protection of dignity does not diminish merely on account of the age of the child at the time of adoption," the bench held.

The Court found the classification between mothers adopting children below and above three months to be under-inclusive and arbitrary. Women adopting children above three months are similarly situated to those adopting infants, insofar as their caregiving roles and responsibilities are concerned. The classification failed the test of permissible classification under Article 14.

"The impugned provision, i.e., Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code, to the extent that it prescribes an age limit of three months, is discriminatory because first, it does not disclose a reasonable distinction between women who adopt a child below the age of three months and those who adopt a child aged three months or above," the Court declared. "Secondly, the particular differentiation has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Thirdly, the classification suffers from under-inclusiveness."

The Court also noted that no Member of Parliament had been able to explain in legislative debates what the rational basis for the three-month limit was — a query that was expressly raised and left unanswered at the time of enactment.

Adoption is an Exercise of Reproductive Autonomy Under Article 21

The Court held that the right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21 is not confined to biological reproduction. Adoption represents an equally conscious and meaningful exercise of the choice to create and nurture a family.

"Reproductive autonomy cannot be narrowly understood as being limited to biological reproduction alone. Adoption too represents a conscious and meaningful exercise of the choice to create and nurture a family, and must be viewed as falling within the broader spectrum of reproductive decision-making," the bench held.

By imposing an age limit, the provision denied adoptive mothers of older children the ability to meaningfully exercise their right to motherhood with dignity — violating Article 21.

The Provision Is Practically Unworkable

The Court dealt a further blow to the provision by examining it through the lens of workability.

The mandatory adoption procedure under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the CARA Regulations, 2022 requires a minimum of 61 to 133 days merely for a child to be declared legally free for adoption — before any referral to prospective adoptive parents even begins. By the time the adoption process is lawfully completed, the child would almost invariably be beyond three months of age.

"By the time a child is declared legally free for adoption, the child is unlikely to remain within the narrow age threshold contemplated by the provision. Although the statute ostensibly confers maternity benefit upon adoptive mothers, yet the benefit remains largely inaccessible in practice," the Court observed.

The Court firmly rejected the Union's suggestion that adoption processes could be expedited. "The expedition cannot be pursued at the cost of the essential safeguards that ensure no child is separated from their parent or legal guardian without consent or due process," it said.

On Best Interests of the Child

The Court held that the principle of best interests of the child — enshrined in the JJ Act, CARA Regulations, and international conventions — is a continuing obligation that persists through the entire period of a child's integration into the adoptive family.

Denying maternity benefit based on the age of the child adversely affects the child's welfare by depriving them of adequate parental presence during the critical initial period of adjustment. The Court noted this concern was especially acute for children with disabilities and for children adopted by single mothers.

"The principle of the best interests of the child does not conclude with the completion of the formalities of adoption or the handing over of custody. It is a continuing obligation," the bench declared.

Crèche Facility Is No Substitute for Maternity Leave

The Court rejected the Union's argument that women adopting older children could avail crèche facilities under Section 67 of the 2020 Code.

The statutory obligation to provide a crèche facility arises only in establishments with fifty or more employees. A crèche merely provides a place for the child during working hours and cannot replace the indispensable presence of a mother. "The realization of the right of maternity benefit must not be contingent on the number of employees," the Court held.

The Court's Call for Paternity Leave Legislation

In a significant observation, the Court noted the absence of adequate paternity leave provisions in the national social security framework. Existing CCS (Leave) Rules grant only fifteen days of paternity leave to male government servants — a figure the Court found inadequate.

"The presence of both parents during the early formative years of a child is indispensable for the child's emotional and psychological development. Paternity leave helps dismantle gendered roles, encourages shared parenting, and promotes gender equality," the bench observed.

The Court urged the Union to enact a statutory provision recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit, with duration responsive to the needs of both parent and child.

The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and read down Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 to now 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." The three-month age limit stands removed.

Date of Decision: March 17, 2026