Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to dignified life — Includes reproductive autonomy and the right to foster a family through adoption — Restricting maternity benefit based on the age of an adopted child infringes upon this right by denying adoptive mothers the opportunity to bond and integrate with their child, compromising both maternal and child welfare.

2026 INSC 246

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISON BENCH

HAMSAANANDINI NANDURI

Vs.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. )

Writ Petition (C) No. 960 of 2021

Decided on : 17-03-2026

[Code on Social Security, 2020, Section 60(4)] | [Age limit for adoptive mothers to receive maternity benefit held unconstitutional, violating equality and dignity.]

A. Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 — Section 5(4) as amended by Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, now Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 — Challenge to the validity of the age limit of three months for adopted children — Held, the age limit is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution — The distinction between adopting a child below three months and above three months is artificial and lacks a rational nexus with the object of maternity benefit, which is to support motherhood and child welfare, not tied to childbirth biology or child’s age — The provision is also practically unworkable due to the time taken for adoption procedures — The Court directed to read the provision as entitling women who legally adopt a child (regardless of age) or are commissioning mothers to maternity benefit for twelve weeks. [Paras 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 69, 129, 130, 131, 142, 143, 144, 145, 166, 167, 168]

B. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to dignified life — Includes reproductive autonomy and the right to foster a family through adoption — Restricting maternity benefit based on the age of an adopted child infringes upon this right by denying adoptive mothers the opportunity to bond and integrate with their child, compromising both maternal and child welfare. [Paras 106, 107, 117, 166]

C. Paternity Leave — The Court urged the Union to introduce a provision for paternity leave as a social security benefit, emphasizing its importance for child development, gender equality, and shared parental responsibility. [Paras 155, 156, 157, 164, 165, 169]

D. Maternity Protection — Recognized as a basic human right and an essential component of social security — It dignifies motherhood, safeguards maternal and child health, and promotes equality at the workplace — The purpose of maternity leave is to support women during early motherhood, providing economic security and enabling them to discharge caregiving responsibilities without facing financial insecurity or professional disadvantage. [Paras 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 59, 60, 148, 154]

E. Workability of Legislation — Beneficial legislation must be practically implementable — The age limit in Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code renders the maternity benefit for adoptive mothers illusory and practically unattainable due to the typical duration of adoption procedures. [Paras 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 166]

F. Gender Equality and Care Work — Maternity benefit plays a role in addressing the “Wollstonecraft Dilemma” by acknowledging women’s caregiving responsibilities while promoting their equal participation in the workforce — This facilitates a balance between familial responsibilities and professional engagement. [Paras 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154]

JUDGMENT

J.B. Pardiwala, J. – For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:-

INDEX

I. THE CONTEXT

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES

IV. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

V. ANALYSIS

V. CONCLUSION

“Not flesh of my flesh, nor bone of my bone,

But still miraculously my own.

Never forget for a single minute,

You didn’t grow under my heart, but in it.”

1. We are tempted to preface our judgment with the words of poet Fleur Conkling Heyliger. The stanza captioned above resonates with an undiminishing force in the present petition as well. It communicates that transition into motherhood does not occur in the brief moment when legal formalities are completed, rather it is a gradual process that takes shape in the heart of the mother. It is within these unspoken moments of reassurance and bonding that the relationship between a mother and child is gradually formed and strengthened.

2. Before we address ourselves on the issues raised in the writ petition, we find it apposite to note that the petitioner filed the I.A. No. 33856/2026 to amend the writ petition to bring on record the amendment and consolidation of the impugned provision by way of the Code on Social Security, 2020. We allow the I.A. for the amendment of the writ petition. The amended writ petition is considered for the purposes of the following exposition.

I. THE CONTEXT

3. The petitioner, who is an adoptive mother of two children, has filed the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in public interest, seeking a declaration to the effect that Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (for short, “MB Act”) as amended by the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 (for short, “Amendment Act, 2017”) is unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, respectively. The prayer in the petition reads thus:-

4. At the outset, we must mention that on 21.11.2025, the Code on Social Security, 2020, came into effect (for short, “the 2020 Code”), by which all laws relating to social security, including that of the MB Act were amended and consolidated. Insofar as Section 5(4) of the MB Act is concerned, Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code is the existing pari materia provision and holds the field on the issue at hand.

5. By order dated 12.12.2025, the Court granted the petitioner permission to take suitable steps to challenge the newly enacted provision, i.e., Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code. Pursuant to which, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 33856/2026 seeking amendment of the petition to challenge Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code on the same grounds which were applicable to Section 5(4) of the MB Act.

6. The impugned provision entitles only those mothers who legally adopt a child below the age of three months or a commissioning mother to seek maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date on which the child is handed over to the adoptive mother. However, the challenge before us is limited to the extent that it governs adoptive mothers.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES

i. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

7. Ms. Bani Dikshit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code creates an unreasonable classification among adoptive mothers. She submitted that the distinction created by the legislature between a woman who adopts a child aged less than three months and a woman adopting a child aged three months or above is artificial and violative of Article 14. She fortified her submission by illustrating that if a woman adopts a child aged four months, she would not be entitled to maternity benefit as provided under the 2020 Code.

8. She added that such an exclusion bears no rational nexus with the object of the 2020 Code and unjustly deprives a mother adopting a child aged three months or above. She further submitted that the age limit of three months could not be said to fulfill the bright-line test, as there is no reasonable distinction between adoptive mothers falling on either side of three-month limit.

9. Ms. Dikshit further submitted that by prescribing the maximum age of the adopted child at three months, Section 60(4) deprives all children above the age of three months from receiving maternal care they need for their development and integration in their adoptive families. In other words, the provision overlooks the physical and emotional well-being of the adoptive child aged three months or above as well as the adoptive parent. Thus, the provision is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory not only towards the mother but also towards the child.

10. In the same breath, she submitted that the provision disregards the long-drawn procedure for the adoption of orphaned, abandoned, or surrendered children under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, “the JJ Act”) and the Adoption Regulations, 2022 (for short, “the CARA Regulations”). She underscored that the process for an orphaned, abandoned, or surrendered child to be “legally free for adoption” would take, at the very least, two months. Furthermore, for the fulfillment of the residuary the statutory procedure under the CARA Regulations would require another month. Thus, in view of such prescribed timeline, the provision would be rendered completely otiose, as in no case can the legal process of adoption be completed before the child.

11. She further highlighted that Section 60(4) restricts a woman’s right to carry on her trade, occupation, and business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution based on the child’s age. She added that such a restriction dissuades women who are working professionals from adopting. Thus, the provision fails to ensure that more children are adopted and also discourages women working in the organized or unorganized sector from considering adoption.

12. She further submitted that the provision also violates the adoptive mothers’ and adoptive children’s right to life and dignity under Article 21 by denying the mother the right to a wholesome and holistic motherhood and the adoptive children the right to receive sufficient care to be rehabilitated and integrated into the new family.

13. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code be declared unconstitutional, to the extent that it limits the benefits to women adopting children up to three months old, being violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, respectively.

ii. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

14. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents submitted that Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code should to be read and interpreted along with the entire scheme of the maternity benefit.

15. The learned ASG submitted that the submission canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the procedure of the adoption is time consuming is devoid of any merit. He submitted that with a view to expedite the adoption process, district magistrates and additional district magistrates have been conferred with the power to issue adoption orders.

16. In the aforesaid context, he submitted that in case an adoptive mother adopts a child aged more than three months, she can avail the creche facilities available at her establishment as per Section 67 of the 2020 Code.

17. It was further submitted that the prescription of “a child below the age of three months” is reasonable as a child older than three months does not have the same intensive dependency on the caregiver in terms of continuous feedings, sleeping regulation assistance, and immediate parental imprinting to the same degree.

18. In the last, the learned ASG submitted that Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code strikes a balance between the rights of adoptive mothers and the concerns of employers. He added that the provision satisfies the proportionality principle, ensures harmonious construction with other laws, and is consistent with international standards.

IV. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

19. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the following questions fall for our consideration:-

V. ANALYSIS

A. Maternity protection as a basic human right

20. Women, as primary caregivers of children, play a crucial role in the early development of children, more particularly, in the formative years of the child when a mother provides stability, care, and consistent nurturing. During this period, mothers undertake extensive physical, emotional, and psychological responsibilities. It often requires them to prioritize childcare over professional commitments. In such circumstances, institutional support becomes necessary to enable them to discharge responsibilities effectively without fear of financial insecurity, professional disadvantage, or the loss of livelihood.

21. The protection of maternity leave is a basic human right, as it recognizes conditions that are necessary for the full development of human personality and realization of equality. It embodies an essential component required to promote equality at workplace and safeguards maternal and child health. In other words, it dignifies motherhood.

22. Maternity benefit or the payment in lieu of such leave is intended to support women during the phase of early motherhood by providing economic security when they are most engaged in the care and nurture of a young child. This act of support recognizes that motherhood entails sustained physical, emotional, and social exertion which demands time, financial stability and resources.

23. The concept of maternity benefit acknowledges the ability of a woman to exercise her reproductive choices without fear of losing her employment, more particularly, the economic security. Thus, it ensures that motherhood does not become a factor for exclusion at workplace.

24. In the aforesaid context, the right of maternity protection recognizes the biological as well as care giving realities associated with motherhood, and seeks to correct structural inequalities that women face in employment. It represents the State’s commitment to uphold human dignity, equal treatment at work, and broader ideals of social justice.

25. Thus, legislating for maternity benefit and childcare, in the form of payment during periods of recovery and care, creche facilities at the workplace, and parental leave for tending to young children, constitutes institutional support aimed at enabling women to seek and retain employment, participate meaningfully in public life, and progressively attain substantive equality.

26. It is important to highlight that motherhood is not merely a biological function but a deeply personal and emotional experience. It is a right rooted in the freedom to love, nurture, and raise a child with dignity and devotion. Parenthood is defined by care and responsibility rather than by physical act of giving birth alone, even more so for women who choose to embrace motherhood by adopting a child overcoming social, emotional, and institutional barriers to provide a child with security.

i. Recognition of maternity protection in the International Law framework

27. Article 25(2) of the United Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) recognizes that motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. It stipulates that all children enjoy the same social protection. Further, Article 10(2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) states that mothers are entitled to special protection for a reasonable period before and after childbirth, including paid leave or leave supported by adequate social security benefits. In addition to this, Article 12 obligates the State Parties to take necessary steps for the healthy development of children.

28. The International Labour Organization (ILO) through Maternity Protection Conventions (Convention No. 3, Convention No. 103, and Convention No. 183) recommended for entitlements related to maternity protection at work having regard to the evolving status and recognition of women’s right at workplace. Initially, Convention No. 3 provided 12 weeks maternity leave with cash benefits to ensure continuity of income, daily breaks for nursing, and protection against dismissal during leave. However, this was limited to women working in public or private industrial or commercial undertakings. Later, Convention No. 183 extended the period of leave to 14 weeks and the scope of protection to women employed in industrial undertakings and in nonindustrial and agricultural work.

29. Further, Article 11(1) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) mandates the State Parties to take appropriate steps to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of maternity and ensure their right to work. It puts an obligation on the State Parties to prohibit dismissal on the grounds of maternity leave and introduce maternity leave with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment.

30. Simultaneously, Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) mandates that all actions concerning children must be taken having regard to the best interests of the child. It urges the State Parties to ensure that all institutional facilities responsible for the care of children shall conform with the established standards.

31. What is discernable from the aforesaid discussion is that various international conventions recognize maternity leave as an essential human right. The objective of all the aforesaid guiding principles is to preserve the health of the mother and the child, to prevent unequal treatment at workplace due to their reproductive choices, and to promote equality of opportunity and equitable treatment between genders.

ii. Statutory recognition of maternity benefit in India

32. The earliest statutory recognition of maternity benefit for working women in India came through the Bombay Maternity Benefit Act, 1929, which regulated the employment of women in factories before and after childbirth and provided for the payment of maternity benefit. In 1931, the Royal Commission on Labour in India recommended that similar protective measures be taken across the country. Thus, such protection was being provided under various State and Central legislations.[1]

33. With a view to bring uniformity in, inter alia, the qualifying conditions for maternity benefit, period of maternity leave, payment in lieu of maternity leave, and to reduce disparity and extend maternity benefit to all women employed in establishment, the MB Act was enacted. The Introduction and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act respectively read thus:-

34. The MB Act was enacted with the object of regulating the employment of women in establishments for periods before and after child birth and providing for the payment in lieu of maternity leave. It aimed to ensure that a working woman does not have to compromise on her role as a caregiver to her child.

35. The concept of maternity benefit also operates as an instrument of “defamilisation”, whereby it reduces the woman’s reliance on family for care and protects economic independence. It represents a legislative commitment towards the promotion of gender equality by creating an enabling environment that recognizes and accommodates balancing familial responsibilities with professional engagement. In doing so, the statute affirms dignity, equality, and social justice for working women.

36. Sometime between 2012 and 2015, the 44th, 45th, and 46th Indian Labour Conferences, respectively, recommended for enhancement of the period of maternity leave, the introduction of maternity benefit for adopting and commissioning mothers, facility of work from home, and provision of creche facility in establishments. Thus, with the aforesaid amendments were introduced to enhance participation of women in labour force and improve work-family balance.

37. The Amendment Act, 2017, inserted sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the MB Act which is in pari materia with Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code. The provision reads thus:-

xxx

38. Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code provides that a woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months is entitled to maternity benefit for a period of 12 weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mother.

iii. Relevant precedents encapsulating judicial interpretation of maternity benefit

39. Before we delve into the discussion of judicial interpretation of scope, ambit, application of maternity benefit in varying circumstances that have come before courts, we may look at the definition of “maternity” in dictionary.

40. The Oxford English Dictionary, defines the word “maternity” as:-

Further, the Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed) defines “maternity as:-

41. The aforesaid definition reflects a broader understanding of maternity in relation to motherhood and does not restrict it to the period before and after childbirth or to the age of the child.

42. We may look into the decision of B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 384, wherein this Court held that the interpretation of beneficial legislation must be guided by its underlying objective of advancing social justice. The Court emphasized that the period of maternity leave serves multiple purposes, including enabling the mother’s physical recovery, facilitating the nurturing and care of the child, and ensuring the level of her previous efficiency and output.

43. In Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), reported in (2000) 3 SCC 224, the claim of the female workers engaged on muster roll for maternity benefit was examined on the anvil of Articles 39, 42, and 43 of the Constitution respectively. The Court, highlighting the critical phase of motherhood, observed that the MB Act seeks to ensure that women are treated with dignity at the workplace and protected from apprehension of victimization on account of forced absence during maternity. In such circumstances, the Court underscored that employers are expected to adopt a humane and empathetic approach towards women employers.

The relevant observations read thus:-

xxx

44. This Court had the occasion to consider the interpretation of Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (for short, “CCS (Leave) Rules”), in Deepika Singh v. Pgimer, Chandigarh, reported in (2023) 13 SCC 681. The maternity leave sought by the appellant upon the birth of her first biological child was rejected on the ground that her spouse had two children from his previous marriage.

The Court underscored that judicial interpretation must bridge the gap between law and social realities through a purposive approach. It noted that the MB Act was enacted to secure a woman’s rights both as a mother and as a worker, and the object of maternity leave is to facilitate the continued participation of women at workplace. What has been conveyed by this Court, in so many words, is that the birth of a child is a natural incident of life and that the provisions of the MB Act must be construed keeping this in mind. An atypical familial structure must not be weighed less than traditionally conforming families. The relevant observations read thus:-

45. In yet another case, a woman’s request for maternity leave was rejected on the grounds that there was no provision for the grant of maternity leave in respect of a third child from her second marriage. In K. Umadevi v. State of T.N., reported in (2025) 8 SCC 263, the Court interpreted the expression “two surviving children” in the relevant rules to mean children in lawful custody of the mother. While considering Section 5 of the MB Act, the Court observed that the grant of maternity benefit is not per se denied to a woman employee having more than two children. In order to effectively achieve broader social welfare goals, the Court sought to harmonize population control measures with the objective of extending maternity benefit.

46. It would be apposite to refer to the observations of the Delhi High Court in Rama Pandey v. Union of India, reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10484, wherein it was noted that except the physiological changes, all other challenges faced in rearing of a child are common for all mothers. The Court rejected the submission made by the respondent that maternity leave is granted only to deal with biological changes which accompany pregnancy. It was further highlighted that the concept of maternity leave shall rest upon motherhood and welfare of the child. The relevant observations read thus:-

47. In Dev Shree Bandhe v. C.G. State Power Holding Co. Ltd., reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1763, the petitioner, employed on probation, sought maternity leave which was declined by the respondent. The Court recognized the right to motherhood and the right of every child to full development as part of Article 21. Similarly, the Rajasthan High Court in Chanda Keswani v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 3274, held that the right to life includes the right to motherhood and the right of every child to full development. Thus, it was held that denial of maternity leave cannot be on the ground that the woman seeking it has given birth biologically, or has begotten a child through surrogacy or adoption.

48. In Pratiba Himral v. State of H.P., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine HP 9295, the petitioner had adopted a child and sought the benefit of maternity leave as per the CCS (Leave) Rules. While allowing the petition, the Himachal Pradesh High Court noted that one of the purposes of the leave is bonding between the child and parents. It was observed that an adopted child is not different from a biological child, thus, the way the child has come into the life of the mother is no ground to refuse maternity benefit. The relevant observations read thus:-

49. Again, the Delhi High Court in State v. Ravina Yadav, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4987, dealt with the question of whether maternity leave could be granted to a woman having two surviving children. The Court adverted to the constitutional principles flowing from Articles 39, 41, 42, and 43 of the Constitution respectively, and observed that maternity leave constitutes an important facet of the constitutional guarantee available to women. It noted that the scope of maternity leave under the CCS (Leave) Rules has gradually evolved – initially confined to biological childbirth, and subsequently extended to include paternity leave, adoption leave, and childcare leave.

What is noteworthy in the observations of the Court that the concept of maternity benefit is intended to achieve social justice for women and children, and the period of leave plays a crucial role in fostering emotional bonding between the mother and the child. In this context, the Court also took note of studies indicating that stress hormone levels in children raised in orphanages are higher than those in children brought up in a familial environment. The relevant observations read thus:-

xxx

50. Motherhood does not end with the birth of a child. This was observed, or rather emphasized by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Lata Goyal v. Union of India, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 5572, wherein the petitioner, an employee of IIM, sought directions that adoption leave and child care leave as per the CCS (Leave) Rules be made applicable to her. The views expressed by the Court merit commendation.

It observed that a woman’s right to practice a profession is a constitutional entitlement flowing from Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution respectively. It emphasized that State cannot remain oblivious to the needs and concerns of women in workforce. The Court categorically held that discrimination on the ground of the mode of bringing a child is impermissible, for the object of such leave is to dignify motherhood and ensure the healthy growth and development of the child. It refrained from distinguishing between a biological, adoptive or surrogate mother. The relevant observations read thus:-

xxx

51. Recently, the Kerala High Court in Susan K. John v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 1333, held that maternity leave is a right and not a leave subject to discretion of the authorities.

52. The commonly drawn distinction between a mother who begets a child through surrogacy or adoption and a mother who naturally gives birth to a child perceives motherhood through the narrow lens of biology and fails to take into account the bond that develops between a mother and her child outside the womb, which is as crucial and intimate, as the bond that is formed inside the womb. Further, the said distinction makes motherhood contingent upon biological requirements and is a direct affront to the desire and intention of a woman to experience motherhood and bring up a child. We have no hesitation in saying that an adoptive mother like the petitioner would have the same rights and obligations towards the child as the natural mother.

53. We do not say for a moment that biological mothers and adoptive mothers form the same category. We acknowledge the distinction created by the legislature. However, the constitutional validity of the impugned provision must be tested by examining the purpose and components of maternity leave and the extent to which such purpose is served in each situation.

54. The components of maternity leave broadly consist of three elements.

55. In case of biological birth, the aforementioned three components are largely subsumed within one another and are not clearly distinguishable. The period of physical recovery often overlaps with the period during which the mother and child establish emotional attachment and the child begins to adapt to the familial setting. Whereas, in case of adoption or surrogacy, while the first component is absent, the second and third component are present and significant. The legislative recognition of maternity leave for adoptive and commissioning mothers under sub-section (4) of Section 60 is itself an acknowledgment of the importance of these components.

56. It is limpid that in the case of a biological mother, the aforesaid components, more particularly, the development of the emotional bond between the mother and the child, are often supported by physiological mechanisms which are evolutionary in nature. In the case of adoption, however, the same bond must be consciously nurtured through time, presence, and sustained care giving.

57. It is in this context that the argument of the petitioner assumes importance that the impugned provision by introducing an arbitrary three-month time limit, deprives adoptive mothers of children older than three months, the opportunity required for the effective fulfilment of the above-mentioned second and the third components, more particularly, when the need for the same could not be said to be solely dependent on the age of the adopted child. We shall now proceed with testing the constitutional validity of the impugned provision on the anvil of the right to equality.

B. The constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution

58. Before testing the constitutional validity of a provision, more particularly, where it is alleged that it violates fundamental rights, it is necessary to ascertain the true nature, character and impact of the provision on the object and intention of the legislation. Thus, the courts have to look behind the form and appearance of the provision. In other words, the purport and intent of the legislation has to be determined.

a. Purpose of social security benefits

59. The discussions in the foregoing paragraphs establishes that the purport and intent of the MB Act, now forming part of the 2020 Code, is to dignify motherhood, safeguard maternal well-being, while ensuring continued participation of women in the workforce. The said Act is a legislative recognition of the physical, emotional, and social dimensions of motherhood, and accommodates the pivotal role it plays in a woman’s life. By providing institutional support, the MB Act endeavours to harmonize professional obligations with familial responsibilities in order to promote an environment in which both the mother and the child would thrive.

60. In 2020, the MB Act, along with other laws relating to social security, were consolidated in order to extend social security coverage to all persons working in both the organized and unorganized sectors uniformly. Social security benefits guarantee labour and economic protection against loss of work due to illness, disability, death of family members, old age, unemployment, and maternity.

61. In the case at hand, we are concerned with maternity benefit. With the increasing participation of women in the workforce, there emerged a growing recognition of economic contribution by women, and of the substantial loss of income when their employment was interrupted. Thus, social security is intended to provide protection against contingencies that impair a person’s capacity to actively participate in work.

62. In the aforesaid context, maternity is one such contingency, as it involves temporary physical, emotional, and economic vulnerability. In other words, maternity benefit form an integral component of the social security framework, aimed at ensuring economic security, safeguarding maternal health, and promoting welfare of the child.

63. In this backdrop, we shall now address the first submission canvassed on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was submitted that Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code creates an unreasonable classification among adoptive mothers. In other words, the petitioner argued that the classification between a woman adopting a child aged less than three months and a woman adopting a child aged three months or more is artificial and violative of Article 14.

i. Examining validity of the impugned provision through the test of permissible classification

64. The law on classification is well settled and does not require restatement in extenso. While Article 14 of the Constitution permits classification, such classification must rest upon a real and substantial distinction. In other words, the differential treatment accorded to one group vis-a-vis another must bear a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislature. Any classification lacking a substantial and intelligible basis is arbitrary and violative of the equality guarantee under the Constitution. Thus, Article 14 mandates that the law must operate equally on all persons under like circumstances.

65. Although classification by its very nature is discriminatory, yet equality, in cases involving classification, is treatment afforded after due regard to the nature, attainment or circumstances of the group concerned, so as to cater to its specific needs. It could be said that classification is an expression of substantive equality. We say so because individuals form a group, and a group is classified on the basis of some qualities or characteristics found in all persons and not in others, and such classification must have relation to the object of the legislation. In this context, this Court in State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, reported in (1952) 1 SCC 1, observed thus:-

66. We may refer to and rely upon the decision of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., reported in (1974) 4 SCC 656, wherein a Constitution Bench explained the characteristics of “reasonable classification”. It stated that a classification would be termed reasonable when it includes all those who are similarly situated with regards to the purpose of such classification and none who are not. In other words, a classification must not either be under inclusive or over inclusive. The relevant observations read thus:-

xxx

67. What flows from the aforesaid decision is that underinclusiveness in classification refers to a situation when classification confers benefits on certain persons in furtherance of a legitimate purpose but fails to extend the same benefits to others who are similarly situated, without a justification. Such a manner of classification renders it unreasonable and volatile when examined through the test of permissible classification under Article 14.

68. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the decision in Pravinsinh Indrasinh Mahida v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Guj 1293, wherein the Gujarat High Court while dealing with the challenge to the legality and constitutional validity of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2019, emphasized on the principle of “similarly situated” expounded by this Court in Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. (supra). The State attempted to exclude sugar factories from the purview of Section 74C of the said Act. The Court found the classification of sugar factories arbitrary, looking at the intention of the Section 74C and the object sought to be achieved through the classification, i.e., administrative exigency or saving money.

In this context, the Court noted that a reasonable classification is one which includes all individuals who are similarly situated with regards to the purpose of the law. It was observed that the government cannot create a classification by excluding one category when both categories belong to the same genus. The relevant observations read thus:-

xxx

69. At this stage, it would be apposite to state that, in order to pass the test of permissible classification, the distinction drawn by the impugned provision or legislation must not only bear a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act, but the classification must also be inclusive of all similarly situated individuals.

70. We may look at the decision in Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 6-A, In re, reported in (2024) 16 SCC 105, wherein this Court held that the factors for determining a class are decisive in assessing whether a provision is under-inclusive or over-inclusive. Such factors must bear a rational nexus with the object and intent of the statute and must be in consonance with constitutional principles.

It was further held that it is incumbent on the State to include all persons within the classification who satisfy the prescribed criteria for classification. Any exclusion of similarly situated individual must be justified, and the degree of justification required to be discharged by the State is substantially higher in a matter affecting individual rights than that applicable in matters of economic policy. The relevant observations read thus:-

71. In the aforesaid context, the observations in Pravinsinh Indrasinh Mahida (supra), succinctly explain the distinction between the intent of the legislation and legislative intention. It underscored that while the legislation intends to remedy a malady, the legislative intention related to the meaning or exposition of the remedy. Insofar as the test for permissible classification is concerned, the rational nexus of the classification is juxtaposed against the intention of the legislation. The relevant observations read thus:-

xxx

72. With a view to dispel any doubt and lend clarity, we deem it appropriate to observe that the legislature is within its right to create a classification and decide the basis thereof. However, the scope and limits of judicial scrutiny in examining such classification must be borne in mind. The degree of deference, or rather restraint exercised by courts in case of classification by the State is elucidated by this Court in State of T.N. v. National South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Assn., reported in (2021) 15 SCC 534. There is no doubt that courts ordinarily accord a high degree of deference to legislative decisions with regards to economic matters. However, when classification affects substantive rights and operates in an under-inclusive manner, judicial deference stands correspondingly diminished. The relevant observations read thus:-

73. What is discernable from the aforesaid discussion is that the distinction created by Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code between a woman legally adopting a child below the age of three months and those who adopt a child aged three months or above must have a rational nexus with the intention and object of the 2020 Code.

74. The learned ASG on behalf of the respondents submitted that the impugned provision has been framed with an objective to strike a balance between the rights of adoptive mothers and the concerns of the employers. He further submitted that the classification under the impugned provision is reasonable as a child older than three months does not have the same intensive dependency on the caregiver.

75. Undoubtedly, the fundamental objective of the 2020 Code is to recognize human dignity by guaranteeing labour and economic protection to persons who are temporarily deprived of their capacity to fully participate in the workforce. There is no gainsaying that the protection granted earlier under the MB Act, and now subsumed within the 2020 Code, has been conceived with due regard to the multifaceted role of a woman as a mother.

76. The legislation acknowledges the indispensable contribution of a woman in familial stability, her responsibility in nurturing and caring for a child, and the physical and emotional demands attached to motherhood. By providing income security and institutional support during this critical phase, the legislation seeks to ensure that motherhood does not operate as a source of disadvantage at a work place, but is instead accommodated as a socially valuable function warranting protection and respect.

77. The purpose of maternity leave neither varies with the nature of employment nor with the manner in which the child is brought into the life of the mother. When we look closely, the natural effect of maternity benefit is to facilitate the physical and emotional adjustment of a mother, ensure the welfare and holistic development of a child, and promote bonding between parents and children during the crucial initial phase of family integration.

78. Thus, taking into consideration the aforementioned object and intention of the 2020 Code, could it be said that women adopting a child aged three months or above do not require the same protection as is afforded to women adopting a child below the age of three months? The answer is an emphatic ‘No’. We say so because the object of maternity benefit is not associated with the biological process of childbirth alone but also takes into account a holistic understanding of attainment of motherhood and consequent fulfillment of the role.

79. What flows from the aforesaid is that 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 necessity of nurturing, care, and family integration remains equally relevant and pressing irrespective of whether the adopted child is below or above the age of three months.

80. In light of the object of the 2020 Code, women who adopt a child aged three months or above are similarly situated to women who adopt a child below the age of three months, insofar as their roles, responsibilities, and care giving obligations are concerned. The essential attributes, capacities, and commitments of adoptive mothers do not undergo any material change merely on account of the age of the child at the time of adoption and the immediate period following the adoption.

81. We are of the considered view that the distinction drawn by Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code, does not have a rational nexus with the underlying beneficial object of the statute. The submission canvassed on behalf of the respondents proceeds on a narrow and restrictive understanding of adoption by limiting it to “care giving responsibilities” towards an infant. Such a view disregards the bilateral process of adjustment and integration of the adopted child with the adoptive family. This disparity not only marginalizes the role that adoptive parents play in the life of the child but also reduces the recognition of their responsibilities.

82. While adoption may not involve the physical tribulations associated with the biological process of giving birth, or intensified care giving responsibilities for an infant, the psychological and emotional factors assume significant importance, thereby requiring the mother to devote time to forge the bond of motherhood with the adopted child. A general approach which fails to consider the nuances associated with modern parenting would denigrate the understanding of motherhood, which flows from the status of being a mother and not merely from the manner of its attainment. Such an approach would also inevitably disregard the welfare of the child.

83. The process of adoption itself entails significant emotional, psychological, and practical adjustments for both the child and the adoptive mother. Children adopted at any age require sustained care, reassurance, and stable parental presence to overcome past vulnerabilities and integrate into a new familial environment. This is even more imperative to allow such mothers to avail themselves of the leave. In such circumstances, denying maternity benefit solely on the basis of an arbitrary age threshold disregards these essential aspects of adoption and undermines the very purpose of social welfare legislation.

84. The absence of an age limit assumes greater importance when we consider the position of children with disabilities. It is a matter of common knowledge that children with disabilities often wait considerably longer to be adopted as compared to other children. The process of identifying adoptive parents, ensuring that they are capable of providing the required care, and completing the necessary formalities would ordinarily take longer.

85. In such circumstances referred to above, confining the benefit of maternity leave where a child is adopted at a prescribed age would operate to the detriment of children with disabilities. It would also discourage the prospective parents from adopting children who require their presence during the initial period of adjustment. The need for parental presence, patience, and emotional support is often more pronounced in the case of children with disabilities. Thus, in such circumstances, in absence of any parental leave, maternity benefit leave enables the adoptive mothers to devote adequate time towards nurturing, rehabilitation, and emotional bonding with the child.

86. This issue also assumes a distinct dimension in the case of single adoptive mothers. Unlike in a traditional family setup where care giving responsibilities may be shared between two parents, a single adoptive mother bears the entire responsibility of integrating the child into the family environment while simultaneously discharging her professional obligations.

87. In the absence of adequate maternity benefit, a single adoptive mother may be compelled to choose between her employment and the immediate needs of the adopted child. Such a predicament undermines the very purpose of social welfare legislation designed to support working women. The law cannot overlook the practical realities. In such circumstances, extending the benefit of maternity leave is not merely a matter of convenience but a necessary support that enables the woman to discharge her parental responsibilities while securing her economic independence.

88. In such a view of the matter, an age limit fails to account for the diverse realities of adoption. The needs of children and adoptive families are neither uniform nor reducible to an understanding of adoption in a typical familial structure. A provision that fails to accommodate these realities undermines the objective of the legislation and is prone to constitutional attacks.

89. Another aspect which deserves to be mentioned is the absence of any graded entitlement to maternity benefit in the impugned provision. In other words, while women adopting children younger than three months are entitled to maternity benefit for a period of 12 weeks, women adopting children even a day older than three months are not entitled to maternity benefit to any extent. This approach adopted by the legislature while enacting the impugned provision does not reflect the real-world requirement of care and nurturing, which does not come to a sudden halt upon the attainment of a certain mathematical number, but gradually tapers with the proper integration of the child with the new environment, especially the parents. While it could be argued that the legislature could have provided for a graded entitlement to maternity benefits dependent upon the age of the child, however, such a situation does not arise for consideration in lieu of the either-or approach adopted by the legislature in the impugned provision.

90. The impugned provision also fails in including all those who are similarly placed, i.e., adoptive mothers. Thus, although the classification expressed in the words, “a woman who legally adopts a child…shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks”, seeks to give a benefit in recognition of gender equity, and in that sense, it bears a rational relation to the intention and object of the statute, yet it nonetheless fails to conform to constitutional principles of equality because it qualifies such benefit to “a woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months”. Thus, it leaves all the similarly situated women who legally adopt a child aged three months or above.

91. We are of the view that 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. Secondly, the particular differentiation, which is sought to be made, has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Thirdly, the classification suffers from under-inclusiveness.

92. Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code, in effect, operates unequally upon adoptive mothers who are similarly situated, resulting in discrimination without reasonable justification. As a necessary consequence, Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code violates the mandate of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. The classification under the Act is palpably unreasonable and arbitrary.

93. When the Amendment Act, 2017, was introduced by the then Minister for Labour and Employment, this very issue was raised during the debates. Although a query was posed regarding the yardstick adopted for capping the age of a child at three months for an adoptive mother to avail maternity benefit, yet it was left unanswered. The question reads thus:-

94. Another submission was canvassed by the respondents that in case an adoptive mother adopts a child aged more than three months, she can avail benefit of the creche facilities available at her establishment. The submission although seemingly appears to be lucrative yet the same in our considered opinion is flawed for the following reasons.

95. The limitation of Section 67 of the 2020 Code, in the particular circumstances, lies in the fact that the statutory obligation of an establishment to provide creche facility arises only when there are fifty employees. A large number of establishments, more particularly, smaller establishments, therefore fall outside the ambit of this requirement, leaving a significant section of working women without access to such facilities.

96. Further, there is no gainsaying that the provision of a creche facilities within an establishment is not a substitute for maternity leave. The realization of the right of maternity benefit must not be contingent on the number of employees. Maternity leave serves a distinct purpose, as elucidated in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. A creche facility, on the other hand, merely provides a place for the child to remain during working hours and cannot replace the indispensable presence and care of the mother during this period.

97. When the benefit of maternity leave is not granted to all mothers, in some situations, she may be compelled either to leave the child at home, rely on the assistance of an older sibling, or take the child with them to the workplace, thereby compromising the child’s health and safety. Where the older sibling is a girl child, such arrangements often result in her being withdrawn from school, which reinforces the vicious cycle of gender inequality.

98. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we may look into the decision of Werner Van Wyk & Ors. v. Minister of Employment and Labour, reported in [2025] ZACC 20. The challenge before the Constitutional Court of South Africa was with regards to the constitutional validity of Sections 25, 25A, 25B and 25C of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (“BCEA”) respectively. The provisions largely dealt with maternity and parental leave. The challenge to the provision was on account of the differentiation between categories of the parents and children, i.e., a child born by their birth mother, a child born by surrogacy, and an adopted child. The challenge to Section 25B is of some relevance to us. Section 25B of the BCEA was challenged as it capped the age of a child being adopted at 2 years in order for the adoptive parent to avail parental leave. The provision read thus:-

99. In Werner Van Wyk (supra), the respondent conceded that the provision is violative of the right to human dignity of persons, more particularly, of women who are not biological mothers. The Court was of the view that the human dignity of such persons is violated because they are not afforded the same protection as biological mothers. It indicated how the absence of provision of parental leave assumes that women are primary caregivers of children. We shall discuss the importance of paternity leave in some detail in the latter part of this judgment.

100. The Court applied the principle of permissible classification to assess whether the differentiation between parents on the basis of the child’s age was constitutionally and statutorily valid. It observed that, on account of such differentiation, a child above the age of two years is denied any opportunity to adjust or integrate into the adopted family. It was further highlighted, and rightly so, that imposing an age limit on the child discourages the prospective parents and reduces the likelihood of such children being adopted. The relevant observations read thus:-

xxx

101. The Court further observed that the need for adjustment to a new environment cannot be negated. It rejected the submission on behalf of the respondent that the provision attempts to place adoptive parents on the same pedestal as biological parents. This meant that the age limit affords similar benefits to different categories of parents. However, the Court held that the maternity benefit policy could not be framed in ignorance of the welfare of the child. In this context, the Court observed thus:-

102. Most importantly, while equating the leave available to adoptive parents with that granted to biological parents, the Court emphasized the difference in the underlying purpose of leave in the case of adoptive parents as opposed to biological parents and surrogate parents. The Court declared the age limit of two years as unconstitutional, and left it to the legislature to determine a reasonable age limit, if any, in accordance with constitutional principles. The relevant observations read thus:-

103. It would also be apposite to refer to the decision by the European Court of Human Rights in Topcic-Rosenberg v. Croatia, Application no. 1939/11. The applicant therein, an adoptive mother of a three year-old child, was aggrieved by the non-grant of maternity leave, which was contrary to Article 14 read with Article 8 of the European Convention on Adoption of Children (“Convention”). Although, the benefit of maternity and parental leave is governed by the Maternity and Parental Benefits Act, 2009, yet the Court viewed the issue largely through the prism of Convention. The provisions read thus:-

104. The Court held that Article 14 read with Article 8 of the Convention squarely applied to the case. It did not see a reasonable justification behind difference in treatment between an adoptive mother and a biological mother insofar as maternity leave and related allowances of an adoptive mother were concerned. Such distinction without a justification was held to be discriminatory. The purpose of such leave in case of an adoptive child was identified to be care-giving responsibilities, nurturing, and bonding for integration of the child in the adoptive family. The relevant observations read thus:-

xxx

105. The net effect of the aforesaid discussion is that the absence of a biological connection does not diminish the depth of their bond. We cannot emphasize more on the fact that motherhood is ultimately shaped through affection, selfless care, and not through blood alone. This is one of those instances where law is confronted by a question which cannot be answered by statute alone.

C. The right to a dignified life for adoptive parents and adopted child under Article 21 of the Constitution

i. Adoption as an expression of reproductive autonomy

106. The second submission canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned provision violates the adoptive mothers’ and adoptive children’s right to live life with dignity as enshrined under Article 21 by denying the mother the right to motherhood and the adoptive children the right to receive sufficient care to be rehabilitated and integrated into his/her new family.

107. Although biology has traditionally been the predominant lens through which kinship and family relationships are understood, yet non-biological modes of building a family are no less legitimate or meaningful. The decision to adopt may be motivated by a variety of personal, social, or humanitarian reasons. Thus, adoption is an equally valid pathway for the creation of a family. It is not biology that constitutes a family of a mother, father, and children, rather, it is the shared meaning, responsibility, and emotional bonds that sustain such a relationship. We say so because biological factors, by themselves, do not determine family behaviour or familial identity.

108. In such circumstances referred to above, an adopted child is no different from a so-called “natural” child, the only distinction is that the process of adoption is more visible and legally acknowledged. Thus, the act of adoption may carry an equally, if not more, profound affirmation of parenthood. There is no doubt that sharing of meaning, affection, and responsibility lies at the heart of both family creation and the adoption process.

109. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., reported in (2009) 9 SCC 1, affirmed the reproductive rights of the appellant-victim, who was allegedly raped while staying in a Government-run welfare institution, when she expressed her willingness to carry the pregnancy till its full term despite being diagnosed with mild mental retardation.

The Court declined to discount her decision on the ground that it was “questionable” and instead looked beyond prevailing social prejudices to accord primacy to her right to make reproductive choices under Article 21. The Court held that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, recognizes and respects the personal autonomy of a woman in matters relating to reproduction. The Court further directed the respondents to ensure that adequate medical facilities were provided so as to safeguard her health and well-being during the course of the pregnancy. The relevant observations read thus:-

xxx

110. We may look into the decision of K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1, wherein this Court recognized the multifaceted nature of the right to privacy, which encompasses, inter alia, decisional autonomy in matters relating to intimate personal choices. Such autonomy includes decisions governing reproduction and family life, thereby affirming the individual’s freedom to make choices concerning procreation and parenthood without unwarranted State interference. The relevant observations read thus:-

111. In X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 9 SCC 433, wherein one of us, J. B. Pardiwala, J., was a part of the Bench, observed that the bouquet of reproductive rights encompasses at the very least the right of women to have or not have children. The Court emphasized that reproductive autonomy forms an integral part of personal liberty and decisional autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The relevant observations read thus:-

112. What can be discerned from the above discussion is that when family structures and modes of parenthood have evolved and diversified, parenthood is not confined to the biological act of giving birth. It includes a broader spectrum of choices through which individuals realize their aspiration to build a family. Thus, an atypical or unconventional familial setup does not strip away the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

113. In the aforesaid context, reproductive autonomy, therefore, 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.

114. The protection of maternity benefit cannot be confined keeping in mind the age of the child. More so, when this benefit seeks to support motherhood and the welfare of the child, it must extend to adoptive mothers who undertake the equally significant responsibilities of nurturing and raising a child.

115. We are at one with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned provision, by stipulating an age limit, fails to recognize the right of reproductive autonomy of those adoptive mothers who adopt a child aged three months or more. It denudes such adoptive mothers of the ability to meaningfully exercise and enjoy their right to decisional autonomy, dignity, and bodily integrity under Article 21.

116. What flows from the aforesaid discussion and need not be elaborated more is that the decision to have children is not confined to the biological birth. The choice to bring a child into one’s life may also manifest through non-biological means such as adoption, which equally reflects an individual’s autonomy in matters of parenthood and family formation. A mother takes birth the day a child comes into her life. While the day of the entry of the child in the mother’s life slightly varies in case of biological route of attainment of motherhood, what follows after the coming of the child in the mother’s life is a universal feeling, shared by all mothers – whether adoptive, surrogate or biological.

117. Recently, in K. Umadevi (supra), Ujjal Bhuyan, J., succinctly highlighted the constitutional support to social security benefits through the Directive Principles of State Policy. The relevant observations read thus:-

ii. Scope and application of the principle of “best interest of the child”

118. For this particular discussion, it would be worthwhile to refer to the observations made by this Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, reported in (1984) 2 SCC 244, wherein this Court prior to enactment of the JJ Act took note of the guiding principles contained in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the United Nations General. The Declaration states that every child must be provided with opportunities and facilities to enable their development by all possible means, and best interest of the child shall be the paramount consideration in all laws and policies concerning children.

This Court categorically observed that in situations where it is not possible for the biological parents to care for the child, an adoptive family would be the most appropriate alternative to provide a loving and nurturing environment. It emphasized that every child has the right to grow up in a loving and caring family. The relevant extract reads thus:-

119. We must now advert to the definition of “best interest of child” as given under the JJ Act. Section 2(9) of the Act reads thus:-

120. Further, Section 3 of the JJ Act states that all the authorities while implementing the provisions of JJ Act shall be guided by the principle of best interest of child. The relevant part of the provision reads thus:-

121. We may also look into the relevant regulations of the CARA Regulations guided by the principle of the best interest of the child. Regulation 3 of the said regulation stipulates one of the fundamental principles governing adoption, within which the child’s best interest is considered of paramount importance. The said regulation reads thus:-

122. Thus, the common thread flowing across the aforesaid provision is that the principle of the best interests of the child constitutes the core of all laws and policies concerning children. It reflects the recognition that children, by reason of their age and vulnerability, they require special care, protection, and opportunities for development. The concept of best interest is not confined to a narrow or immediate understanding of welfare but rather, it comprises the overall well-being of the child. The principle of best interest seeks to ensure that every child is provided with conditions that promote their healthy development.

123. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is limpid that the guiding premise underlying this principle is that every child must be given the opportunity to grow in an environment that nurtures their potential, emotional, and intellectual development. The family, as a primary unit of care and protection, plays an indispensable role in fulfilling these objectives. A stable and harmonious home environment provides the foundation which enables a child to realize their fullest potential.

124. In Dasari Anil Kumar v. Child Welfare Project Director, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1689, the appellants who were adoptive parents, were aggrieved by the action of police in taking away the custody of minor children from them without the authority of law. This Court, having regard to the best interest of the children, the bonding between the parents and the child, the principle of family responsibility, and the principle of safety, directed that the custody of the children be restored to the adoptive parents. The relevant observations read thus:-

xxx

125. In the aforesaid context, we may also refer to a decision by Labour Court of South Africa, Durban in MIA v. State Information Technology Agency (Pty) Ltd., [2015] ZALCD 20, which dealt with the denial of “maternity” leave to a male employee. The respondent therein refused to grant leave on the basis that its policies and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act covered only “female” employees. In the case before the Court, the surrogacy agreement provided that the applicant would play the role of usually performed by the birthmother.

In such circumstances, the Court held that maternity leave is associated to the welfare and health of the child’s mother as well as best interests of the child. While keeping in mind the best interest of the child, the Court further held that the policy of the respondent unfairly discriminates against the applicant and he should be entitled to “maternity leave”. The relevant observations read thus:-

xxx

126. We may also look into the decision by the House of Lords in In re P & Ors., [2008] UKHL 38, wherein the Court dealt with the issue of whether an unmarried couple could be excluded from being considered as adoptive parents of a child. In that case, the male applicant, who was not the child’s biological father, sought to be recognized as the father, while the female applicant was the biological mother of the child. However, article 14 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order, 1987, states that an adoption order could be made on the application of more than one person only if the applicants were a married couple.

The Court held that such a rule which excluded unmarried couples from maintaining an application as a potential adoptive parent was discriminatory and violative of the fundamental principle of adoption law, i.e., the best interest of child. It was held that status of an individual with regards to his marital life cannot be said to be determinative of the fact of child’s best interest. Thus, the applicants were held to be entitled to apply to adopt the child. The following observations of Lord Hoffman and Lord Mance respectively are worthy of reproduction:-

xxx

127. Similarly, the South African Constitutional Court in Suzanne Du Toit and Vos v. Minister for Welfare and Population Development, (2002) 13 BHRC 187, dealt with the issue of whether the applicants (same-sex unmarried couple) were eligible to adopt children as the existing legislation restricted the right to adopt only to married couples. The Court referred to Section 28(2) of the Constitution, which states that a child’s best interest is of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.

In such circumstances, the Court held that the exclusion of the applicants defeats the essence and purpose of adoption which is to provide stability, commitment, affection and support for child’s development. The impugned provision was held to be violative of the principle of best interest of the child as it deprived them of a stable and loving family. The relevant observations read thus:-

xxx

128. The overarching theme emerging from these judgments is that the law across the globe recognizes that the best interest of the child must remain the paramount consideration in all decisions affecting a child. It needs no elaboration that children must be raised in an atmosphere of affection, understanding, and moral security.

129. In the aforesaid context, 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 of the child to the adoptive parents. It is a continuing obligation that persists throughout the period a child remains a child, more particularly, in this context, during which the child integrates into the adoptive family. The true fulfilment of the child’s welfare lies in enabling the child to meaningfully adjust, bond, and flourish within the family environment. The period immediately following adoption is often the most critical phase in this process, as the child must acclimatize to unfamiliar surroundings and develop a sense of belonging within the new family.

130. The net effect of the aforesaid discussion is that the welfare of the child in adoption extends far beyond the moment of placement. It entails the child’s health, emotional security, and other needs, all of which require constant care, and support from the parent. When Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code imposes an age limit of three months for the availment of maternity benefit by an adoptive mother, it fails to adequately account for these continuing dimensions of the child’s welfare.

D. Examining validity of the impugned provision through its workability

131. We may look at the matter from one another angle. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code fails to take into consideration the time required for completing the procedure for adoption of orphaned, abandoned, or surrendered children under the JJ Act and the CARA Regulations, respectively. She would submit that the adoption process ordinarily takes 2 months or more to be completed. Consequently, by the time the child is legally placed with the adoptive mother, the statutory age limit would, in most cases, stand exhausted, thereby, rendering the provision largely otiose in its practical application.

132. The following table indicates the timeline of the time required for a child to be declared legally free for adoption and referred to prospective adoptive parents (PAPs). It reads thus:-

133. The substantial amount of time in the aforesaid timeline, in the case of a surrendered child, is devoted to allowing the parents or guardian to reconsider their decision to surrender the child. Whereas, in the case of an orphaned or abandoned child, owing to the age of the child, time has been devoted to making sincere efforts to trace the biological parents or legal guardian of the child.

134. We lay much emphasis on the fact that this timeline cannot be compromised, having regard to the sensitive nature and the serious legal consequences that follow once a child is declared legally free for adoption. The time afforded to biological parents to reconsider the decision of surrender, as well as the efforts undertaken to trace the biological parents or legal guardians of an orphaned or abandoned child, are indispensable safeguards. These processes are bound to require time and must necessarily be allowed to unfold with due care.

135. In this regard, the respondents have submitted that in order to expedite the adoption process, district magistrates and additional district magistrates have been conferred with the power to issue adoption orders. We discourage this understanding of the adoption process. 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.

136. The conferment of such powers is intended to streamline procedural bottlenecks and ensure timely administrative action. This does not warrant the curtailment of the safeguards embedded in the statutory scheme. The adoption framework is designed not merely to facilitate placement of children but to ensure that every stage of the process accords primacy to the best interests of the child. Any attempt to compress or abbreviate these procedures in the name of expedition would undermine the safeguards that protect the rights of the child as well as those of the biological and adoptive parents. Therefore, the time taken in the process of declaring a child legally free for adoption is not a procedural “formality” but a necessary component of a careful and responsible adoption structure.

137. We shall now turn to the legal discussion concerning this issue. In adjudging the validity of a provision, the existing conditions in which the law is to be applied cannot be ignored. We say so because such conditions bear a direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. A statutory provision cannot be examined in isolation or in the abstract, divorced from the practical realities within which it is expected to operate.

138. In the aforesaid context, it is apposite to understand that law is not unidimensional or myopic in its application. If a provision is framed without due regard to the administrative conditions in which it is to operate, the intention of the legislation would stand frustrated. The law must be understood not merely through its terminology, but also in terms of its ability to meaningfully address the conditions for which it has been enacted.

139. It is well settled that the law cannot be merely symbolic or rather illusory. A legislative provision, more particularly, one which is beneficial in nature, must be capable of meaningful implementation so that the class for whose benefit it has been enacted is able to effectively avail the protection intended by the legislature. If the structure of the provision or the circumstances surrounding its operation make the benefit practically unattainable, the law risks becoming a mere formality on paper rather than an instrument of social welfare.

140. It would be worthwhile to refer to the observations made by this Court in State of Kerala v. Unni, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 365. The challenge to Rule (2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 2002, was on the ground of its unworkability. In the factual scenario, the sample obtained from the business of the respondent was found to contain ethyl alcohol in excess of 9.5%. The respondents therein contended that no mechanical equipment was available to accurately measure the ethyl alcohol content in toddy. This Court, accepting the respondent’s argument, held the provision to be unworkable when put to application, and struck down the impugned rule. The relevant observations read thus:-

xxx

xxx

141. In this context, by the time a child is declared legally free for adoption, the child is unlikely to remain within the narrow age threshold (three months) contemplated by the provision. The inevitable consequence is that although the statute ostensibly confers maternity benefit upon adoptive mothers, yet the benefit remains largely inaccessible in practice.

142. This issue was highlighted in Temple of Healing v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1003/2021, wherein the petitioner called attention to the deficiencies in the process for adoption in the country. The report submitted by the Central Adoption and Research Agency indicated that PAPs wait between three to four years in order to get a healthy and young child. The reason was attributable to the mismatch in the number of registered PAPs and children available for adoption. The Court observed that the process of defining the legal status of the child is delayed on part of the CWCs. We may again bring the observations of this Court to the notice of the respondents. It reads thus:-

143. This Court should not remain oblivious to such ground realities. When a law, more particularly a beneficial legislation, is framed in a manner that prevents the intended beneficiaries from actually receiving its benefits, it ceases to serve its social purpose. A beneficial legislation must be interpreted and structured in a manner that enables its benefits to reach the masses for whom it is intended.

144. Thus, a provision which, owing to its design or surrounding conditions, cannot be effectively applied may result in the law becoming illusory in operation. The constitutional promise of equality and social justice demands that beneficial measures are not merely enacted, but are also capable of meaningful realization in the lives of those whom they seek to protect.

145. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to observe that the legislature, while enacting a statute, bears the responsibility of ensuring that the law it enacts is capable of being implemented. The duty of the law maker does not end with the mere articulation of a right or benefit. The enforceability of that right is equally important. Accessibility of law does not mean formal existence, but the ability of individuals to avail the benefits.

E. Institutional invisibility of household and care work

146. This provides us with the segue to address yet another aspect of rationale behind conferring maternity benefit upon adoptive mothers irrespective of the age of the adopted child.

147. It is not an unknown phenomenon that women often sacrifice earnings and career progression for childbirth and child care. Care work for children includes attending to their daily needs, bathing and feeding them, accompanying them for medical visits, etc., and undertaking the preparation that these responsibilities entail. There is no doubt that every member of a household benefits from the care work within households, and ordinarily, it is undertaken by women.

148. Such work of indispensable nature for the functioning of the family is performed without any explicit remuneration. The care provided within the home enables other members of the household to participate productively at their workplace. The economic significance of this care work, though frequently overlooked, is considerable. Only when time is spent on domestic and care responsibilities, the receivers are able to sustain productive employment. Thus, the contribution of women’s unpaid labour at home, is not merely a private or domestic matter but forms an integral part of the broader economy.

149. In this regard, we may refer to what is called the Wollstonecraft Dilemma. It refers to the tension between recognizing women’s role as caregivers and ensuring their equal participation in the workforce. This dilemma reflects the challenge of reconciling two competing expectations placed upon women. First, that they perform the role of a caregiver. Secondly, that they participate on equal terms with men.

150. This communicates that it would be unreasonable to treat women identically to men without acknowledging the social realities of the responsibilities to be undertaken at home. As a result, it will perpetuate structural disadvantage. At the same time, it would be unjust, if the law recognizes differences without ensuring equality in opportunity. Thus, conferring maternity benefit is a manner of acknowledging the realities of care giving while enabling women to remain integrated within the workforce.

151. A study by the ILO indicate that employed women tend, on average, to work for longer hours than employed men when both paid employment and unpaid domestic work are taken into account.[6] This disparity in working hours highlights the gendered nature of household responsibilities and clearly reflects societal norms regarding domestic labour and care work. Further, in the study, Valuation of Unpaid Household Activities in India[7], the authors highlight the economic significance of unpaid domestic and care work performed within households. There is no doubt that such unpaid house and care work contributes to the overall growth of the economy.

152. The aforesaid study reflects that this care work, though often unaccounted for, is far from insignificant, rather, it represents a foundational contribution to economic productivity. These care giving responsibilities do not change when a woman adopts a child aged three months or above. On the contrary, they are heightened, in order to make the child comfortable and integrate within the family.

153. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment that the initial months following the arrival of a child, whether by birth or adoption, require time, attention, and rearing responsibilities to ensure the well-being of the child and the establishment of a stable environment.

154. In such circumstances, the absence of adequate economic protection or institutional support places an unreasonable burden upon women. There is no gainsaying that it would be unreasonable to expect a woman who has just welcomed a child into her life and simultaneously discharges the demanding responsibilities of care giving at home to maintain the same level of presence and efficiency at the workplace. The maternity benefits are nothing but an expression of treatment grounded in equity and substantive approach to equality.

F. Highlighting the importance and need for paternity leave

155. 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. Society has historically attributed care giving and nurturing responsibilities almost exclusively to mothers. While the role of a mother is undeniably central to a child’s emotional, physical, and psychological development, it would be incomplete and unjust to overlook the equally significant role of a father.

156. Parenthood is not a solitary function performed by one parent but rather a shared responsibility in which each parent contributes to the child’s holistic development. Although the father is present at the periphery of infancy, yet he is not present in the intimate and irreplaceable way that society has always presumed the mother must be. This acceptance of absence has seldom been examined with the seriousness it deserves. As a result, the cost is borne silently by children who grow up never realizing what they lacked, by fathers who were constrained by circumstances to remain distant. At the same time, by mothers who were denied the companionship and support of their partners in the early phase of care giving.

157. The early months and years of a child’s life constitute a formative period during which emotional bonds, attachment, and a sense of security begin to take shape. During this stage, the presence of a father contributes significantly to the child’s emotional and psychological well-being. The essence of the matter is simple, the presence of both parents during the early development of a child is indispensable. What a father offers to a child in those nascent days cannot be scheduled for a convenient time or compensated for later.

158. In the aforesaid context, the absence of a father is rationalized by the hope of making up for lost time through devoted weekends. For the child, who needed to hear the voice and feel the warmth of a father in those early moments, the absence is not merely a matter of memory. It affects the foundation upon which the child begins to build emotional security and attachment. The absence of a father during the formative years of a child’s life, particularly due to employment constraints, deprives both the child and the parent of the opportunity to form these early bonds.

159. We must note that proximity is not identical to presence. A father who remains physically near yet is compelled by professional obligations to remain disengaged from early care giving roles cannot truly participate in the formative experiences of a child’s infancy. It is not unknown that fathers have traditionally been perceived as providers, with their responsibilities revolving around financial stability. Consequently, as financial care does not resemble the visible, everyday nurturing, it has often been undervalued as a basis for recognizing the need for leave.

160. The other side of the same coin is the historical absence of a father’s participation in everyday care giving and shared responsibility. In this context, the absence of paternity leave produces two consequences. First, it reinforces gendered roles in parenting. Secondly, even where a father is willing and desirous of contributing, he is left 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 mother and share family responsibilities. This support extends to participating in the upbringing and care giving of the child, assisting with household responsibilities, and remaining emotionally present during this demanding phase.

161. In such circumstances referred to above, a provision for paternity leave serves an important purpose by enabling fathers to participate meaningfully in the early stages of a child’s life and development. It helps in dismantling gendered roles, encourages fathers to take an active role in child care, fosters a balanced understanding of parenting, and promotes gender equality within family and workplace.

162. It also advances the best interests and welfare of the child, which are most effectively served when both parents are enabled to play meaningful and complementary roles in the child’s growth and development. The reasons highlighted in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment for maternity leave remain similar for paternity leave.

163. At present, Sections 43A and 43AA of the CCS (Leave) Rules, respectively, grant a male government servant 15 days of paternity leave for the birth of the child or for adoption. The provisions read thus:-

164. The aforesaid provision reflects that the concept of paternity leave is not alien, but less recognized. We are observant that certain efforts are being made towards recognizing the need for such a provision. Recently, a private member Bill titled The Paternity and Parental Benefit Bill, 2025 (Bill No. 82 of 2025), was introduced, which seeks to grant eight weeks of paternity leave. The Bill, inter alia, seeks to extend paternity leave to adopting fathers.

165. Before we part, we would like to pen that a child who is born or adopted does not know what the law has decided about presence of the father, nor does the child understand how the law values paternity leave. 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.

V. CONCLUSION

166. A conspectus of our discussion in the aforesaid section is as follows:-

167. For all the foregoing reasons, we have reached the conclusion that Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code insofar it puts an age limit of three months on the age of the adoptive child, for the adoptive mothers to avail maternity benefit under the 2020 Code is violative of Articles 14, and 21 of the Constitution respectively.

168. Therefore, the sub-section (4) of Section 60 of the 2020 Code should now be meaningfully read as:-

169. In light of the aforesaid discussion on the need of paternity leave, we urge the Union to come up with a provision recognizing paternity leave as a social security benefit. We emphasize that the duration of such leave must be determined in a manner that is responsive to the needs of both the parent and the child.

170. In the result, the petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.