Rakia Imran
On 29th January 2025, a Double-Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pradiwala and R. Mahadevan of the Supreme Court held back a judgment in a writ petition challenging Section5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (as amended in 2017) as per which a woman who adopts a child is entitled to maternity benefit only if the adopted child is aged less than three months.
The Supreme Court was reviewing a challenge to a provision related to adoptive mothers, which was incorporated into the law in 2017. The petitioner’s counsel asserted that adoption in India is governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. She pointed out that the flaw in Section 5(4) is that it denies maternity benefits of 12 weeks to adoptive mothers if the adopted child is older than three months.
Addressing the issue, Justice Pardiwala questioned the logic behind setting a specific age limit for maternity benefits for adoptive mothers. He observed that the law grants these benefits only for children below three months and asked how one determines the right age threshold. In response, the Advocate contended that the relevant act defines a child as anyone under 18 years of age, suggesting that maternity benefits should not be restricted to only infants below three months.
The Court initially stated that the provision must have been enacted with a clear legislative purpose. However, once the Union’s counsel began presenting his arguments, the Court inquired whether there was any direct link between the provision’s objective and the specific restriction imposed on maternity benefits for adoptive mothers. The Counsel explained that biological mothers are entitled to 18 weeks of maternity leave to care for their newborns and recover from the physical effects of childbirth, whereas adoptive mothers receive only 12 weeks because there is no need for recovery. The Court, however, emphasized that its concern was not with the overall duration of maternity leave but with the rationale for limiting the benefit based on the age of the adopted child.
During the proceedings, Justice Pardiwala expressed doubts about whether the provision had any meaningful connection with the objective it aimed to achieve. He reiterated that the Court was assessing the reasonableness of sub-section 4 in light of Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. He clarified that the focus of the Court’s inquiry was not on the duration of maternity leave but on the arbitrary limitation imposed based on the age of the adopted child. To illustrate his point, he presented a hypothetical case in which a couple, unable to conceive, legally adopts a child who is three years, three months, and fifteen days old. He questioned how an adoptive mother in such a situation is expected to provide adequate care without maternity benefits. He underscored the illogical nature of the rule, which grants 12 weeks of leave only if the adopted child is younger than three months, and remarked that the provision appears to lack any reasonable justification.
Case Name: Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 960/2021
Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan