SC Challenges “Discriminatory” Maternity Leave Cap For Adoptive Mothers

The Legal Deadlock: Section 5(4) vs. Section 60(4)

For nearly a year, the Supreme Court had reserved its verdict (on January 29, 2025) on a challenge to the old Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. However, the legal landscape shifted last month when the government repealed the old Act and brought the Code on Social Security, 2020 into effect.

• Pari Materia Provision: The Court noted that Section 60(4) of the new Code is nearly identical to the challenged Section 5(4) of the old Act.
• The Amendment: To ensure the case remains relevant, the Court permitted the petitioner to amend her plea to challenge the new law directly.

The “Three-Month” Barrier

The current law creates a rigid hierarchy for maternity benefits in India:

1. Biological Mothers: Entitled to 26 weeks of paid leave.
2. Adoptive Mothers (Infants < 3 months): Entitled to 12 weeks of paid leave.
3. Adoptive Mothers (Children > 3 months): Entitled to zero maternity leave.

The Petitioner’s Argument: “Lip Service” to Adoption

The petition, filed by Karnataka-based lawyer Hamsaanandini Nanduri, argues that the law is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

• Arbitrary Discrimination: Nanduri, who adopted two siblings aged two and four, was denied leave because neither child was a newborn. She argues the law discriminates between biological and adoptive mothers, and between adoptive children themselves.
• Impossible Timelines: Under CARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority) regulations, the process to declare a child “legally free for adoption” often takes more than two months, making it almost impossible to finalize an adoption within the three-month window.
• The Bonding Crisis: The petition emphasizes that older children—often coming from traumatic backgrounds—need more time, not less, to bond with their new parents.

Why This Matters in 2025

The notification of the Four Labour Codes in November 2025 was intended to modernize India’s workforce regulations. However, critics argue that by carrying over the 1961 restrictions, the government has missed an opportunity to support the “best interests of the child” as mandated by the Juvenile Justice Act.