Breaking: Women Who Adopted Child Above Age Of 3 Months Are Similarly Situated To One Who Adopted Child Below Age Of 3 Years: Supreme Court Strikes Down 3-Month Age Limit For Adoptive Mothers

The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark ruling for adoptive parents, striking down Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security 2020 as unconstitutional. The ruling strikes down the arbitrary three-month age limit for adopted children, which previously determined whether an adoptive mother was eligible for maternity benefits.

The provision, which was made a subject matter of challenge, entitles mothers who legally adopt a child below the age of three months to the maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date on which the child is handed over to the adoptive mother. 

The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan ordered, "A conspectus of our discussion in the aforesaid section is as follows: A. The distinction drawn by subsection (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 solely 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 roles, responsibilities, and caregiving 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...B. 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."

AOR Mukesh Kumar Singh and Co. appeared for the Petitioner, while ASG K.M Nataraj appeared for the Union of India.

The Court further added, "C. The right of reproductive autonomy is not confined to the biological act of giving birth. Adoption is an equal exercise of the right to reproductive and decisional autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution...D. In matters affecting a child, paramount consideration must be given to the best interests of the child. This consideration does not conclude with the completion of the formalities of adoption or the handing over of custody; rather, it continues throughout the period the child remains a child, more particularly the period during which the child integrates into the adoptive family. The true fulfillment of the child's welfare lies in enabling the child to meaningfully adjust, bond, and flourish within the family environment...E. When subsection (4) of Section 60 of the 2020 Code is examined through another angle, the provision turns out to be incapable of practical implementation, as it cannot fully achieve the purpose for which it has been enacted. With regard to the time required to declare a child legally free for adoption, by the time such a declaration is made, the child is unlikely to be less than three months old. Thus, the age limit renders the provision illusory and devoid of practical application."

The Court said, "We have noted the submissions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, the submissions on behalf of the respondents, and the issues for consideration. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the following questions fall for our consideration: First, whether the age limit of three months stipulated under subsection (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 the second question: whether the age limit of three months stipulated under subsection (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?"

"We do not say for a moment that biological mothers and adoptive mothers form the same category. We acknowledge the distinction created by the legislature. However, the constitutional validity of the impugned provision must be tested by examining the purpose and components of maternity leave and the extent to which such purpose is served in each situation. This is how we have looked into the entire issue", it added.

The petitioner had filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of the Act, 1961, which came to be inserted vide the Amendment Act. Section 5(4) of the Amendment Act entitles only those mothers who are adopting a child below the age of three months to seek the benefit of maternity leave for a period of 12 weeks.

It was the case of the petitioner that the provision in question is a social welfare legislation, and there is no reasonable classification when it restricts the age of the infant up to three months. In other words, if a woman adopts a child above the age of three months, she will not be entitled to any such maternity leave benefit as provided under the Amendment Act.

The Court observed, "Thus, adoption is an equally valid pathway for the creation of a family. It is not biology alone that constitutes a family of a mother, father, and children. Rather, it is the shared meaning, responsibility, and emotional bonds that sustain such a relationship. We say so because biological factors by themselves do not determine family behavior or familial identity. In such circumstances referred to above, an adopted child is no different from a so-called "natural" child. The only distinction is that the process of adoption is more visible and legally acknowledged. Thus, the act of adoption may carry an equally, if not more, profound affirmation of parenthood. There is no doubt that the sharing of meaning, affection, and responsibility lies at the heart of both family creation and the adoption process."

The Court concluded, "Overall, the foregoing conclusion is that Section 60, subsection (4) of the 2020 Code—insofar as it puts an age limit of three months on the adoptive child for the adoptive mothers to avail maternity benefit—is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution respectively. Therefore, subsection (4) of Section 60 of the 2020 Code should now be meaningfully read as: a woman who legally adopts a child or a commissioning mother shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of 12 weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mother or the commissioning mother, as the case may be...In light of the aforesaid discussion on the need for paternity leave, we urge the Union to come out with a provision recognizing paternity leave as a social security benefit. We emphasize that the duration of such leave must be determined in a manner that is responsive to the needs of both the parent and the child. In the result, the petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms."

The Union of India filed its reply justifying the prescription of the age of three months. The Court had asked the Union of India to file a further reply on the issue discussed today, more particularly, as to what is the rationale in saying that it is only the woman who adopts a child below the age of three month would be entitled to seek maternity leave benefits otherwise not. 

Vide order dated December 12, 2025, the Court ordered, "Before we could pronounce the judgment, it was brought to our notice that the Code on Social Security, 2020 (for short “the 2020 Code”) now amends and consolidate all the laws relating to social security including that of the Act, 1961. The 2020 Code was published in the Official Gazette on 29.09.2020. However, what is relevant to note is that Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code is pari materia to Section 5(4) of the Act, 1961...After a period of more than 5 years i.e. on 21.11.2025, the Ministry of Labour and Employment issued a notification bringing into force several provisions of the aforesaid 2020 Code...We were of the view that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner should withdraw this petition with permission to file a fresh petition challenging the provision of Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code...However, taking into consideration the fact that Section 5(4) of the Act, 1961 is pari materia to Section 60(4) of the 2020 Code, we permit the learned counsel to amend the petition within a period of six weeks accordingly."

Cause Title: Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition(Civil) No. 960/2021]

Click here to read/download the Judgment

(This is a hearing story; the judgment was added later.)