Published On: June 7th 2026
Authored By: Harshita Wadhwa
Maharaja Surajmal Institute
Case Details
Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 402
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Date of Judgment: March 17, 2026
Relevant Provisions: Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020
Brief Facts
The petitioner, Ms. Hamsaanandini Nanduri, is an adoptive mother of two children. She filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court, challenging Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and its in pari materia provision, Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020.
Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 provides that adoptive mothers who adopt a child below three months of age are entitled to receive maternity benefit of twelve weeks from the date the child is given to the adoptive mother.
The petitioner contended that this provision does not take into account the realities of the adoption process in India, including the guidelines of the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA). Since the adoption process is time-consuming, it generally results in the adoption of children above three months of age. Consequently, this provision excluded mothers who adopt children above three months of age from receiving maternity benefits.
The petitioner argued that such an impractical age restriction for receiving maternity benefits violates her fundamental right to equality under Article 14 and her right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Issues
The Supreme Court decided the following issues in this case:
Issue I: Whether the age restriction of three months under Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 violates Article 14 of the Constitution and is discriminatory towards women who adopt a child aged three months or above.
Issue II: Whether the age restriction of three months under Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 violates the right to reproductive autonomy of an adoptive mother and the right of the adopted child to receive holistic care and development under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 classifies adoptive mothers without any rational basis. The distinction drawn between women who adopt a child below three months of age and women who adopt a child of three months or above, for the purpose of receiving maternity benefits, was argued to be violative of the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21. It was further submitted that such a distinction contradicts the very object of the 2020 Code.
The petitioner also submitted that this provision deprives children adopted above three months of age of maternal care, which is essential for their holistic development and integration into the family, thereby violating their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Additionally, it was argued that Section 60(4) violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by restricting a woman’s right to carry on her trade, business, or occupation, as it denies her maternity benefits based solely on the age of the adopted child.
On these grounds, the petitioner urged the Court to declare Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 unconstitutional as being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents contended that Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 must be read in conjunction with the entire maternity benefit scheme. To counter the argument concerning delays in the adoption process, the respondents submitted that district magistrates and additional district magistrates have been empowered to issue adoption orders so as to expedite the process.
The respondents further argued that the three-month limit is reasonable because a child above three months of age does not have the same care requirements as a child below three months. For children adopted above three months, the respondents pointed out that adoptive mothers have access to creche facilities at the workplace under Section 67 of the Code on Social Security, 2020.
On this basis, the respondents contended that Section 60(4) strikes a reasonable balance between the concerns of employers and the rights of adoptive mothers.
Judgment
The Supreme Court, in Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India, allowed the writ petition under Article 32 and held that the three-month age restriction under Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 was unconstitutional, as it limited maternity benefits only to women who adopt a child below the age of three months.
Taking into account the constitutional principles and the objectives of the Code on Social Security, 2020, the Court held that protecting maternity benefits is integral to human dignity and essential to achieving equality and ensuring basic human rights. The Court adopted a broad definition of motherhood, observing that motherhood is not confined to the biological process of childbirth but also encompasses caregiving, emotional bonding, and the integration of a child into the family. It further held that adoptive mothers equally require maternity benefits to provide care and emotional bonding to the adopted child and to facilitate the child’s integration into the family. An adopted child, irrespective of the age at which the child is handed over to the mother, requires care and emotional bonding in order to integrate well with the family.
The Court observed that the age-based restriction does not have a reasonable nexus with the objectives of the Code. Classifying adoptive mothers on the basis of the child’s age was held to be arbitrary and unreasonable, and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court further held that adoption falls within the scope of reproductive autonomy and choice of a woman, and that denying maternity rights to an adoptive mother on the basis of an unreasonable classification is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court struck down the restrictive age condition under Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that “all adoptive mothers are entitled to maternity benefits, irrespective of the age of the child,” and that maternity benefits shall be granted from the date the child is handed over to the adoptive mother.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that any classification under a legislation must bear a reasonable and rational nexus with its objective. The three-month age limit as a basis of classification under Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 was held to be arbitrary, as it denied maternity benefits to adoptive mothers who adopt a child aged three months or above without any reasonable justification.
The Court reaffirmed the doctrine of intelligible differentia and rational nexus, both of which were found to be absent in the present case, rendering the provision violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court also reaffirmed that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 encompasses reproductive autonomy and the choice of adoption. Accordingly, denying maternity benefits to adoptive mothers based on the age of the adopted child was held to be unconstitutional.
Obiter Dicta
The Court observed a broader definition of motherhood, extending it beyond childbirth to include care and emotional bonding. It noted the deep-rooted institutional invisibility of unpaid care work, which is disproportionately borne by mothers. The Court therefore emphasised the need to recognise women’s unpaid contributions to the family and society.
In this context, the Court suggested the importance of paternity leave as a means of ensuring that childcare responsibilities are shared and not carried solely by mothers. It observed that paternity leave would promote shared responsibility and gender equality within families, while also providing fathers with the opportunity to build emotional connections with their children, beyond merely providing financial support.
These observations, though not binding, reflect the judiciary’s concerns regarding evolving family structures and its commitment to progressive and harmonious living.
Final Decision
In Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India, the Supreme Court allowed the writ petition under Article 32 and declared Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 unconstitutional. The age-based restriction, which denied maternity benefits to adoptive mothers who adopt a child aged three months or above, was struck down as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court held that “all adoptive mothers are entitled to maternity benefits, irrespective of the age of the child,” and that maternity benefits shall be granted from the date the child is handed over to the adoptive mother.
References
[1] Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 402 (India).
[2] The Code on Social Security, No. 36 of 2020, INDIA CODE (2020).
[3] The Maternity Benefit Act, No. 53 of 1961, INDIA CODE (1961).
[4] INDIA CONST. art. 14.
[5] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
