Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India
Background
An adoptive mother of two children filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (later succeeded by Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020), which granted paid maternity leave to adoptive/commissioning mothers only if the adopted child was below three months of age at the time of adoption. She argued this cut-off was arbitrary because the emotional, psychological and practical demands of caring for a newly adopted child do not meaningfully differ based on whether the child is, say, two months or four months old at handover. During the case, the law itself was consolidated into the 2020 Code, and the Court allowed her petition to be amended to challenge the new provision on the same grounds.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the three-month age cut-off had no rational nexus with the purpose of maternity benefit, which is tied to the process of motherhood and the child's need for parental bonding and care, not to childbirth itself, and so mothers adopting older children are similarly situated to those adopting younger ones. The Court also found the provision self-defeating in practice, since by the time a child is legally declared free for adoption through the required procedures, it is rarely under three months old, making the benefit illusory for most adoptive mothers. Grounding its reasoning in Article 21, the Court held that adoption is an equal exercise of reproductive and decisional autonomy, and that the "best interests of the child" principle extends beyond the formal act of adoption into the ongoing period of integration into the adoptive family. Accordingly, it struck down the three-month age limit as violative of Articles 14 and 21 and read down Section 60(4) to grant twelve weeks of maternity benefit to any woman who legally adopts a child, regardless of the child's age, or to a commissioning mother, from the date the child is handed over. The Court additionally urged the Union Government to introduce a statutory paternity leave benefit, noting existing paternity leave rules for government servants and a pending private member's bill on the subject.
Lesson Learnt
Legal classifications that grant benefits based on arbitrary cut-offs (like a child's age at adoption) must have a genuine rational connection to the law's purpose. Courts can strike down or "read down" such provisions where they are irrational or practically unworkable, and constitutional rights of dignity and autonomy under Article 21 extend fully to adoptive parenthood, not just biological parenthood.