HAMSAANANDINI NANDURI vs. UNION OF INDIA - Supreme Court judgment on maternity benefit

HAMSAANANDINI NANDURI vs. UNION OF INDIA - Supreme Court judgment on maternity benefit

Meta Description: HAMSAANANDINI NANDURI vs. UNION OF INDIA: Supreme Court judgment on Section 60(4) (maternity benefit for adoptive mothers). Petition allowed; age limit read down.

INTRODUCTION

HAMSAANANDINI NANDURI vs. UNION OF INDIA: this Supreme Court judgment addressed the challenge to Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020 (formerly Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act) which limited maternity benefit for adoptive mothers to cases where the child is below three months. The Court held that the three-month age limit violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and allowed the petition, directing that Section 60(4) be read without the three-month restriction so that a woman who legally adopts a child or a commissioning mother is entitled to twelve weeks of maternity benefit from the date the child is handed over.

QUICK FACT BOX

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: 2026 INSC 246

Bench: J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan

Date of judgment: 17th March, 2026

Petitioner: Hamsaanandini Nanduri

Respondent(s): Union of India & Ors.

Provision challenged: Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020 (pari materia with Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961)

Outcome: Petition allowed; Section 60(4) read down to remove the three-month age limit for adoptive mothers

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Parties involved: The petitioner is Hamsaanandini Nanduri, an adoptive mother of two children. The respondents are the Union of India and others.

Events leading to litigation: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 as amended by the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017. After consolidation of social security laws, Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020 became the provision in question. The petitioner moved for amendment to challenge Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code; the Court allowed the amendment by I.A. No. 33856/2026.

Nature of the impugned provision: Section 60(4) entitled a woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months, or a commissioning mother, to maternity benefit for twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over.

Procedural posture: The challenge proceeded before the Supreme Court after the petitioner was permitted to contest the newly enacted Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code. No lower court decision is recorded in the judgment.

LEGAL ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

The main question before the Court was:

Whether the age limit of three months stipulated under sub-section (4) of Section 60 of the Social Security Code, 2020, could be said to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution being discriminatory towards women who adopt a child aged three months or above? and

Whether the age limit of three months stipulated under sub-section (4) of Section 60 of the Social Security Code, 2020, could be said to be in violation of the right to reproductive autonomy of an adoptive mother and the right of the adopted child to holistic care and development under Article 21 of the Constitution?

SUPREME COURT ANALYSIS

Maternity protection as a basic human right: The Court recorded that maternity protection recognizes conditions necessary for the full development of human personality, safeguards maternal and child health, supports economic security during early motherhood, and dignifies motherhood. The Court referred to international instruments including UDHR, ICESCR, CEDAW, CRC, and ILO maternity conventions and noted that the international framework recognizes maternity leave and related protections.

Statutory history and object: The Court reviewed the statutory evolution of maternity benefit in India, noting the object of the Maternity Benefit Act and its consolidation in the Social Security Code, 2020 to harmonize social security benefits and protect working women.

Text of the impugned provision: Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code provides maternity benefit for twelve weeks to a woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months or a commissioning mother, counted from the date the child is handed over.

Precedents and purposive interpretation: The Court examined prior decisions including B. Shah, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), Deepika Singh v. PGIMER, and other High Court and international authorities that guided a purposive interpretation of maternity benefits and recognized maternity leave for adoptive and commissioning mothers in appropriate circumstances.

Article 14 analysis and classification test: The Court applied the permissible classification test under Article 14, recalling the requirement of an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of the legislation. The Court held that reasonable classification must not be under-inclusive. It relied on established principles from Anwar Ali Sarkar, Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., and other authorities discussed in the judgment.

Findings on Article 14: The Court found that adoptive mothers who adopt a child above three months are similarly situated to those who adopt below three months in relation to caregiving obligations, bonding, and need for economic and institutional support. The Court held that the three-month age limit lacked a rational nexus with the object of the 2020 Code, was under-inclusive, and therefore discriminatory in violation of Article 14.

Article 21 analysis and reproductive autonomy: The Court found that reproductive autonomy and the right to parenthood extend beyond biological birth. The Court relied on precedents recognizing reproductive rights and decisional autonomy under Article 21 and held that adoption is an exercise of reproductive choice. Denying maternity benefit on the basis of the child’s age at adoption infringed adoptive mothers' Article 21 rights.

Best interest of the child: The Court reviewed the principle of the best interest of the child under the Juvenile Justice Act, CARA Regulations, and international jurisprudence, observing that the period after adoption is critical for integration and bonding and that denial of maternity benefit undermines the child’s welfare.

Workability and implementation timeline: The Court considered the statutory and regulatory timeline for declaring a child legally free for adoption under JJ Act and CARA Regulations, noting that procedural safeguards require time and that, in practice, the three-month limit often renders the statutory benefit unattainable. The Court held that a beneficial provision that is practically inaccessible becomes illusory.

Other observations: The Court noted the inadequacy of crèche provisions as a substitute for maternity leave, the special needs of children with disabilities, and the challenges of single adoptive mothers. The judgment also discussed institutional invisibility of unpaid care work and highlighted the need for paternity leave, urging the Union to consider paternity leave provisions.

FINAL VERDICT

Decision: The petition was allowed.

Constitutional finding: The Court held that Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, insofar as it imposed an age limit of three months for adoptive mothers to claim maternity benefit, violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Remedy: Section 60(4) was read down and ordered to be understood as:

"(4) 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, as the case may be."

Directions: The Court urged the Union to consider a provision recognizing paternity leave as a social security benefit and to determine its appropriate duration.

Miscellaneous: Pending applications were disposed of.

WHY THIS JUDGMENT MATTERS

The judgment explicitly holds that the three-month age cap in Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020 is unconstitutional as violating Articles 14 and 21, and directs that the provision be read without the age restriction so that adoptive and commissioning mothers are entitled to maternity benefit irrespective of the child’s age at adoption.

The Court also expressly urged Parliament and the Union government to consider framing a statutory provision for paternity leave.

CONCLUSION

HAMSAANANDINI NANDURI vs. UNION OF INDIA: the Supreme Court judgment allowed the petition and read down Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020 to remove the three-month age limit for adoptive mothers seeking maternity benefit. The Court declared the age limit violative of Articles 14 and 21 and directed the Union to consider paternity leave provisions.