A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan struck down Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 as unconstitutional. Adoptive mothers are now entitled to 12 weeks of paid maternity leave from the date of adoption regardless of the age of the adopted child. The three-month age cap is gone.
What the Law Said Before This Judgment
Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 — which replaced the corresponding provision in the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 — entitled an adoptive mother to 12 weeks of maternity leave only if the adopted child was below three months of age at the time of adoption.
In practice, this restriction was largely inoperative. India’s legal adoption process under the Juvenile Justice Act and the Central Adoption Resource Authority framework takes months to years to complete. By the time an adoption order is issued and the child is handed over, most adopted children are well beyond three months old.
The Supreme Court described this outcome precisely: the age restriction bore no rational nexus with the purpose of maternity protection and was, in effect, a legislative anomaly that defeated the statute’s own objective.
What the Judgment Changes
The Supreme Court did not strike down Section 60(4) entirely. It read the provision down to remove the age restriction, substituting a constitutionally compliant interpretation.
The provision now reads, in effect: A woman who legally adopts a child, or a commissioning mother, shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mother or the commissioning mother.
- Adoptive mothers have the same maternity leave entitlement as biological mothers — 12 weeks from the date the child is handed over. No age cap.
- The purpose of maternity leave is bonding, caregiving, and emotional integration of the child into the family — not merely physical recovery from childbirth.
- The court urged Parliament to legislate paternity leave as a social security benefit. This is an observation, not an order, but it signals judicial receptiveness to paternity leave claims in future litigation.
Who Is Affected
Every employer covered by the Code on Social Security — every employer with 10 or more employees — must review their maternity leave policy for adoptive mothers against this judgment.
- Any employer whose leave policy still references the “child below three months” restriction.
- Any employer whose payroll system calculates adoption leave eligibility based on the child’s age at the time of adoption.
- Any employer who has previously denied or curtailed maternity leave to an adoptive mother because the adopted child was above three months of age.
Three Actions Required
Action 1 — Update the maternity leave policy immediately.
Remove any reference to a child age restriction for adoptive maternity leave. The policy should state clearly that adoptive mothers are entitled to 12 weeks of paid maternity leave from the date of handover, irrespective of the child’s age.
Action 2 — Reconfigure the payroll system if it applies an age-based filter.
Where the HR or payroll system calculates adoption leave eligibility by reference to the child’s date of birth or age at adoption, that filter must be removed. The trigger for the 12-week entitlement is the date of handover.
Action 3 — Assess historical denials.
Where any employee has been denied adoption leave — or had adoption leave curtailed — because the adopted child was above three months of age, that denial is now indefensible. Legal counsel should advise on the appropriate remedy.
The Paternity Leave Signal
The Supreme Court’s direction to Parliament to consider paternity leave as a social security benefit is the first time the apex court has issued such a direction in the context of the Code on Social Security framework. It is not binding, but it is a signal that the judicial view of parental leave is expanding toward a more gender-neutral parental framework.
Employers who have not yet designed a paternity leave policy should do so now — before legislative or judicial developments make it mandatory and before a labour market that already prices parental leave as a retention tool makes the absence of a paternity leave policy a recruitment liability.
Case Details
| Case name | Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench | Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan |
| Date of judgment | 17 March 2026 |
| Provision struck down | Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, in part — the “below the age of three months” restriction read down |
| Constitutional provisions cited | Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India |
If your organisation needs to assess its current adoption leave policy, update leave documentation, or address historical adoption leave denials, Mintskill’s Statutory Compliance Practice can advise.
Request Policy Review
