Hamsaanandini Nanduri V. Union of India and others,2026 INSC 246

                          Supreme court of India, Decided on: 17 March,2026

FACTS

Hansaanandini Nanduri ,the petitioner in the above case who was an adoptive mother who legally adopted a child above the age of three months. Like many prospective adoptive parents in India, she went through a long and rigorous legal adoption process involving registration, verification, counselling, and approval by relevant authorities. By the time the process was completed and the child was legally placed in her care, the child was older than three months

When she applied for maternity leave from her employer, so that she could care for the child, help the child adjust to the new family environment, and develop the emotional bond that is essential between a mother and her child. she was denied the maternity benefit. The denial was based on section 60(4) of the code on Social Security, 2020 which restricted maternity benefit of 12 twelve weeks only to women who adopted a child below 3(three) months of age or to commissioning mothers (in case of surrogacy). Since the petitioner’s adopted child was older than three months at the time of adoption, she was denied the statutory protection under the Maternity benefits act.

The Petitioner felt that this was unfair and discriminatory and believed that the responsibilities of an adoptive mother do not disappear simply because the child is few months older. In fact, an adopted child, regardless of age, often requires significant emotional support, care attention and bonding time to settle into a new family.

Feeling that the law treated adoptive mothers unfairly Hamsaanandani approached the Supreme Court. She argued that motherhood is not limited to giving birth and that adoptive mothers deserve the same protection benefit as biological mother. She challenged the provision that restricted maternity benefits to women adopting children below 3 months of age and sought equal treatment for all adoptive mothers. These circumstances led her to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the constitutional validity of section 60(4) of the code as being arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of her Fundamental Rights.

ISSUES RAISED

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration

1.Wheather section 60(4)  of the Code of on Social Security which denies Maternity benefits to adoptive mothers of children above three months of age, is violative of Article 14 of the constitution (Right to Equality) by creating an arbitrary and discriminatory classification among adoptive mothers ?

2. Whether the denial of  maternity benefit to such adoptive mothers constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution(Rights to Life and Personal Liberty, including the right to motherhood and dignity)?

3.Wheather the classification drawn under section 60(4) – distinguishing between adoptive mothers based solely on the child’s age at the time of adoption is based on any intelligible differential having a rational nexus to the object of the legislation?

4.Wheather the impugned provision is practically unworkable, considering that the legal adoption process in India often takes much longer than three months, thereby making the benefit illusory for most adoptive mothers ?

CONTENTIONS

Petitioner’s contentions

The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of section 60(4) of the code on social security code,2020. She argued that the provisions was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative

Of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the law creates and unreasonable difference between adoptive mothers who adopt children below three months. Both categories of mothers assume identical parental responsibilities, and therefore denying benefits to one category lacked any rational basis.

The petitioner further contended that the primary benefits is not merely recovery from child birth but also to facilitate bonding, emotional attachment, care, and integration of the child into the family environment. These objectives are equally important in cases of adoption, irrespective of the age of the adopted child. Therefore restricting benefits based on the child’s age defeated the very purpose of legislation.

The Petitioner also argued that the three-month age limit was practically unworkable because the legal adoption process under Indian law often takes several months to complete. As a result, most adoptive mothers would never be able to avail themselves of the benefit, making the provision illusory and ineffective in practice.

Additionally, the petitioner submitted that adoption is a recognized means of forming a family and falls within the ambit of reproductive autonomy, dignity, and personal liberty under Article 21. Denying maternity benefits to adoptive mothers adopting older children undermined their right to motherhood and adversely affected the welfare and best interests of adopted children.

Respondent contentions

The Union of India defended the validity of Section 60(4) and argued that the legislative possesses the authority to determine the scope and extent of social welfare benefits. It was submitted that maternity benefits, are statutory benefits and the legislature can prescribe eligibility conditions and classification based on policy considerations.

The respondents contended that the classification based on the age of the child was reasonable and intended to provide benefits during the earliest and most crucial stage of a child’s life. Infants below 3 months require intensive care, constant supervision in nurturing, which justified granting maternity benefits specially in such cases. Therefore, the classification has a rational nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by the legislation.

The respondent further argued that courts should exercise restraints in matters involving legislative policy and social welfare schemes. Unless a provision is manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional, the judiciary should not interfere with the policy choices made by Parliament. The respondents maintained that the impugned provisions represented a legislative decision balancing employee welfare with administrative and financial considerations.

Finally, the respondents asserted that adoptive mothers and adoptive children above three months were not similarly situated to those adopting newborn infants. Since the needs and circumstances of the two groups differed, the distinction created by the statute was reasonable and constitutionally permitted.

RATIONALE / ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court undertook a thorough analysis of the purpose and object of maternity benefit legislation in India and held the decision in favour of the petitioner.

On the purpose of maternity leave: The court firmly rejected the narrow view that maternity leave exists only to protect biological mothers from the physical consequences of child birth . Drawing on that line of precedents including Rama Pandey v. Union of India(2015 SCC Online Del 10484) and chanda keswani v. State of Rajasthan(2023 SCC online Raj 3274), the court held that maternity leave rests on two foundations: the welfare of the mother and the welfare of the child. Childcare, emotional bonding, and family integration are needs that do not disappear based on the biological method by which a child comes in the family.

On Article 14: The court applied the twin test of classification 1. Intelligible differentia, and 2. Rational nexus with the object of the law. It held that the object of maternity benefit is to protect motherhood and child welfare. The classification based solely on weather the adopted child is above or below three months of age bears no rational nexus to this object. An adoptive mother of the four month old child needs the same if not more leave to bond with and care for the child. The court expressly applied the principle that the government cannot not create sub- classification excluding one sub categories when both sub- category belongs to the same genus. The provision was therefor held arbitrary and violative of article 14.

On Article 21: The court held that the right of reproductive autonomy under article 21 is not confined to the biological act of giving birth. Choosing to become a mother through adoption is a protected expression of this autonomy. Denying maternity leave to adoptive mothers strikes at their dignity and there right to motherhood, and also adversely affects the child’s right to full development. The Court further observed that an adopted child is no different from a biological child in the eye of law, and an adoptive mother has the same rights and obligations as a natural mother.

On Paternity Leave: While deciding the case, the court also expressed concern about the absence of any meaningful statutory paternity leave in India. The court urged the union of India to consider enacting a law recognising paternity leave, observing that shared parenting responsibilities reduce gender bias and contribute to the overall wellbeing of families and children.

DEFECTS OF LAW

While the judgement is welcome and progressive, certain aspects needs further clarity.

 First, the Court’s decision, though just, creates a legislative gap rather than filling it. By striking down the three months age cap. The court has extended maternity leave to all adoptive mothers, regardless of the child’s age. However the question of an upper age limit (if any) for the adopted child remains open. The legislature must now step in with a comprehensive and clear provision.

Second, the judgement deals with maternity leave under the code on Social Security,2020, but does not fully address the corresponding provision under the maternity Benefit Act,1961, which also contains similar restrictions for adoptive and commissioning mothers. A gap therefore remains in the legal framework, and a uniform amendment across both statutes is necessary.

Third, the court’s direction regarding paternity leave, while Court’s intention is good, it remains only an observation and is not binding. Without a legislative mandate, the position of fathers seeking leave to care for an adopted child remains unprotected.

Fourth, the judgement could have more clearly addressed the position of single adoptive fathers, who fall entirely outside the scope of maternity benefit legislation and have no corresponding statutory protection.

INFERENCE

Hamsaanandani Nanduri VS Union of India,2026 is a landmark judgement that fundamentally reshapes the understanding of maternity benefit law in India. The Supreme Court has correctly recognised that motherhood is not a biological condition but a relationship one build on love, care and responsibility. While putting down the arbitrary three months age gap, the Court has ensured that the protection of the law extends equally to all mothers, regardless of how they choose to become one.

The judgement is a strong affirmation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution in the context of family law and Social Security. It recognises adoption as an equal and equally valid expression of reproductive autonomy, placing adoptive mothers on the same footing as biological mothers for the purpose of statutory benefits.

It also calls on the legislature to modernise the frame for paternal leave in India by introducing meaningful paternity leave provisions. The decision will have wide reaching implications for the interpretation of Social Security legislation and for the rights of adoptive families across the country. It signals a judicial commitment to leading welfare legislation in a manner consistent with constitutional values of equality, dignity and child welfare.

REFERENCES

• Hamsaanandini Nandoori v. union of India and Ors,2026 INSC 246(India Mar. 17,2026) Supreme Court of India Writ Petition(civil) No. 960 of 2021
• The Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 21
• Code on Social Security,2020 ,section 60(4)
• Maternity Benefit Act,1961, section 5(4)

Name:Rinky Chauhan Aswal

College name: G. J. Advani Law college