SC Strikes Down 3-Month Adoption Limit for Maternity Benefit

Case Details: Hamsaanandini Nanduri vs. Union of India [2026] 184 taxmann.com 355 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ.
• Ms Bani Dikshit, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Kishan Kumar, Uddhav Khanna, Dhruva Vig, Narendra Kumar Goyal, Santanu Jugtawat, Kadam Hans, Komal Singh, Subodh, Ikshit Singhal & Harsh Chaturvedi, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Shailesh Madiyal, Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Vatsal Joshi, Praneet Pranav, Advs. & Amrish Kumar, Aor for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner, an adoptive mother of two children, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, which entitled only a woman who legally adopted a child below three months to 12 weeks’ maternity benefit from the date the child was handed over.

The petitioner contended that the age limit of three months imposed for adoptive mothers was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it created an unreasonable classification among adoptive mothers.

It was noted that Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, to the extent that it prescribed an age limit of three months, was discriminatory because, first, it did not disclose a reasonable distinction between women who adopted a child below the age of three months and those who adopted a child aged three months or above.

Further, it was noted that the particular differentiation, which was sought to be made, had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

The Supreme Court observed that classification suffered from under-inclusiveness. Further, Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, in effect, operated unequally upon adoptive mothers who were similarly situated, resulting in discrimination without reasonable justification.

Further, the Supreme Court observed that, as a necessary consequence, Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, violated the mandate of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 was to be read as ‘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 commissioning mother, as the case may be.

List of Cases Reviewed

• State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. (1974) 4 SCC 656 (para 66) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1977) 4 SCC 384 (para 42)
• Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) 2000 taxmann.com 3094 (SC) (para 43)
• Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal [2022] 8 taxmann.com 1467 (SC) (para 44)
• K. Umadevi v. State of T.N. (2025) 8 SCC 263 (para 45)
• Rama Pandey v. Union of India 2015 SCC Online Del 10484 (para 46)
• Dev Shree Bandhe v. C.G. State Power Holding Co. Ltd. 2017 SCC Online Chh 1763 (para 47)
• Chanda Keswani v. State of Rajasthan [2024] 11 taxmann.com 1307 (Rajasthan) (para 47)
• Pratiba Himral v. State of H.P. 2021 SCC Online HP 9295 (para 48)
• State v. Ravina Yadav 2024 SCC Online Del 4987 (para 49)
• Lata Goyal v. Union of India 2025 SCC Online Chh 5572 (para 50)
• Susan K. John v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences 2026 SCC Online Ker 1333 (para 51)
• State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) 1 SCC 1 (para 65)
• State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. (1974) 4 SCC 656 (para 66)
• Pravinsinh Indrasinh Mahida v. State of Gujarat 2021 SCC OnLine Guj 1293 (para 68)
• Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 6-A, In re (2024) 16 SCC 105 (para 70)
• State of T.N. v. National South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Assn. (2021) 15 SCC 534 (para 72)
• Werner Van Wyk v. Minister of Employment and Labour [2025] ZACC 20 (para 98)
• Topcic-Rosenberg v. Croatia [Application no. 1939/11] (para 103)
• Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. (2009) 9 SCC 1 (para 109)
• K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 (para 110)
• X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 9 SCC 433 (para 111)
• Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 244 (para 118)
• Dasari Anil Kumar v. Child Welfare Project Director 2025 SCC Online SC 1689 (para 124)
• MIA v. State Information Technology Agency (Pty) Ltd. [2015] ZALCD 20 (para 125)
• In re P [2008] UKHL 38 (para 126)
• Suzanne Du Toit and Vos v. Minister for Welfare and Population Development (2002) 13 BHRC 187 (para 127)
• State of Kerala v. Unni (2007) 2 SCC 365 (para 140)
• Temple of Healing v. Union of India [W. P. (C) No. 1003 of 2021] (para 142).