Adoptive mothers entitled to maternity benefits: Supreme Court strikes down restrictive classification under social security law
Case Name: Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 246
Date of Judgment/Order: 17 March 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Held: The Supreme Court held that the restriction of maternity benefits only to adoptive mothers of children below three months of age under Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that such classification is under-inclusive, lacks a rational nexus with the object of maternity benefits, and unjustifiably excludes similarly situated adoptive mothers.
Summary: The petitioner, an adoptive mother, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 (earlier Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961), which grants maternity benefit only where a child below three months is adopted. It was argued that this creates an artificial classification among adoptive mothers and defeats the purpose of maternity protection, particularly considering the statutory timelines of adoption procedures under the Juvenile Justice framework. The respondents contended that the provision balances employer interests and caregiving needs and that younger infants require more intensive care.
The Supreme Court undertook an extensive constitutional analysis of maternity benefits as a facet of social security, dignity, and equality. It emphasized that maternity protection is a fundamental human right and extends beyond biological childbirth to include caregiving, emotional bonding, and child development. The Court recognized that motherhood is not confined to biology and that adoptive mothers are equally entitled to legal and constitutional protection. It noted that the impugned provision creates an unreasonable classification between adoptive mothers based solely on the age of the child, which bears no rational nexus to the object of maternity benefits.
Applying the doctrine of reasonable classification, the Court held that the provision is under-inclusive as it excludes adoptive mothers of children above three months who are similarly situated in terms of caregiving needs. The Court further held that such exclusion undermines the rights of both the adoptive mother and the child, including the right to dignity, emotional development, and integration into a family under Article 21. The judgment also highlighted international conventions and prior precedents affirming maternity benefits as essential to gender equality and social justice.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, declared the restrictive portion of Section 60(4) unconstitutional to the extent it limits maternity benefits to adoption of children below three months, and expanded the scope of maternity benefits to include adoptive mothers irrespective of the age of the child, subject to reasonable conditions consistent with the object of the legislation.