PTI
New Delhi
Observing that adoption is part of the right to reproductive autonomy, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a law which said a woman would be eligible for maternity leave if she legally adopts a child below the age of three months, holding it is discriminatory.
Ruling that age-based classification under Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security 2020 was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that an adoptive mother should be entitled to maternity leave of 12 weeks, irrespective of the age of the adopted child.
The protection of maternity benefit cannot be confined to keeping in mind the age of the child, the court said, adding that an adoptive mother would have the same rights and obligations towards the child as the natural mother.
“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,” the bench said.
The apex court also asked the Centre to come out with a provision recognising paternity leave as a social security benefit.
“The distinction drawn by sub-section (4) of Section 60 does not have a rational nexus with the object of the 2020 Code. The object of maternity benefit is not associated with the process of childbirth but with the process of motherhood.”
“The purpose of maternity protection does not vary with the manner in which the child is brought into the life of the beneficiary mother. Insofar as the roles, responsibilities, and care-giving obligations are concerned, 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,” the bench said.
The top court said the process of adjustment and integration within the adoptive family, both for the parents as well as the child, remains substantially the same irrespective of the age of the child.
“The impugned classification overlooks the significant emotional, psychological, and practical adjustments required of the adoptive parents and the adopted child, more particularly, in cases involving children with disabilities or single adoptive mothers,” it said.
The top court’s judgment came on a plea filed by advocate Hamsaanandini Nanduri, an adoptive mother of two children, challenging Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code that allows 12 weeks of maternity leave only if an adoptive mother adopts a child below three months of age.
The petition stated that the purported 12 weeks of maternity benefit to adoptive mothers is not only a “mere lip service, but when juxtaposed with the maternity benefit of 26 weeks provided to biological mothers, fails to stand even the basic scrutiny of Part III of the Constitution, which is wedded to the concept of non-arbitrariness”.
In its judgment spanning 100-pages, the top court said 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,” it said.
The apex court said the process of adoption itself entails significant emotional, psychological, and practical adjustments for both the child and the adoptive mother. It said 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,” the bench said.
“The protection of maternity leave is a basic human right, as it recognises conditions that are necessary for the full development of human personality and realization of equality. It embodies an essential component required to promote equality in the workplace and safeguards maternal and child health,” the bench said.
Emphasising that law cannot overlook the practical realities, the court said 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.
