Adoption falls within the ambit of reproductive autonomy under Article 21: Supreme Court

Date: 19/03/2026

Case Name: HAMSAANANDINI NANDURI VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Petition Number: Writ Petition (C) No. 960 of 2021

Citation: 2026 INSC 246 

Date of Judgement: 17.03.2026

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE  J.B. PARDIWALA & HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

BACKGROUND:

Earlier, maternity benefits in India were governed by various state and central laws until the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (MB Act) was enacted to provide uniformity. In 2017, Section 5(4) was introduced through an amendment. This provision was later incorporated into the Code on Social Security, 2020 (the code) under Section 60(4) to provide maternity benefits to adoptive and commissioning mothers. These provisions granted 12 weeks of maternity leave to a woman who legally adopts a child, but only if the child is “below the age of three months.” The petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 and challenged the constitutional validity of this provision. 

FACTS:

The petitioner is an adoptive mother of two children. She challenged Section 5(4) of the MB Act and its corresponding provision: Section 60(4) of the Code. It was stated that these provisions are unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. 

ISSUES:

1. Whether the age limit of three months is in violation of Article 14 as it is discriminatory towards women who adopt a child aged three months or above?
2. Whether the age limit of three months is in violation of the right to reproductive autonomy of an adoptive mother and the right of the child to holistic care and development under Article 21?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES: 

Petitioner: 

• The petitioner argues that the law creates an artificial and unreasonable classification between mothers who adopt a child under three months and mothers who adopt a child aged three months or more. There is a lack of rational nexus between the age limit and the objective of the Code. 
• Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and the Adoption Regulations, 2022 (CARA Regulations), the process for a child to be “legally free for adoption” would take at least two months. Fulfillment of the additional statutory procedures would require another month. Hence, the provision is rendered completely otiose as it is practically impossible to finish the process before a child reaches that age. 
• The emotional and physical well-being of older children are being overlooked and they are denied the care required for development and integration into a new family. The provision also violates the right to wholesome and holistic motherhood for the mother and the right of the child to receive care, both of which fall under Article 21. Moreover, the age limit acts as a barrier for working women as she may be forced to choose between career and motherhood if leave is not granted. Thus, it is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. 

Respondents:

• The respondents contended that infants below three months are absolutely dependent on their caregiver for continuous feeding and sleep regulation. Children aged three months or more do not have the same intensive dependency. Hence, the age limit is reasonable. Section 60(4) strikes a perfect balance between the rights of adoptive mothers and the concerns of employers. 
• The Section 67 of the Code was relied upon which mandates that establishments with 50 or more employees must provide creche facilities. A woman can utilise those facilities to balance her professional duties and caregiving responsibilities. 
• It was submitted that now District Magistrates and Additional District Magistrates are allowed to issue adoption orders to ensure expediency of the adoption process. 

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS:

1. Maternity protection as a basic human right: 

The Court established that maternity protection is a fundamental human right and motherhood involves not only biological aspects but also emotional, psychological, and caregiving responsibilities. 

1. Recognition of maternity protection in the International Law framework: The Court analysed international conventions and noted that maternity is viewed as a social function rather than a private burden. These frameworks require special protection for motherhood and childhood, equal workplace rights, and promotion of child welfare. 
2. Statutory recognition of maternity benefit in India: The Court stated that the legislative intent has always been to provide substantive equality. The 2017 Amendment was a progressive step, but the age-based restriction defeats the whole purpose of it. 
3. The constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14: 
4. Purpose of social security benefits: The Court held that social security is a tool for social justice and in the context of maternity, it is meant to ensure that the mother can nurture the child without having to choose between her career and motherhood. 
5. Examining validity of the impugned provision through the test of permissible classification: The Court applied the “Reasonable Classification” test and stated that the categories created by the legislature must be based on an intelligible differentia. The distinction created between adoptive mothers was artificial and arbitrary. One of the objectives of the Act was to facilitate bonding and child welfare, the age limit obstructed that too as adopted children often come from a background of neglect or trauma. They need more time to bond with a new parent, not less. Hence, the age limit lacked any rational nexus to the objective of the law. 
6. The right to a dignified life for adoptive parents and adopted child under Article 21 of the Constitution:
7. Adoption as an expression of reproductive autonomy: The choice to adopt is an integral part of a woman’s reproductive autonomy. Providing benefits only to a certain set of mothers is equivalent to obstructing a woman’s ability to exercise her choice of motherhood. This is an infringement of Article 21. 
8. Scope and application of the principle of “best interest of the child”: The best interest of the child is a paramount consideration in any law concerning children. The provision denies necessary support to children aged three months or more which affects their holistic development. 
9. Examining validity of the impugned provision through its workability: Given that the adoption process is time-consuming, it is unlikely that a child would be adopted within the given time period. Hence, the benefit becomes redundant and impractical. 
10. Institutional invisibility of household and care work: The maternity benefits serve as a recognition of the caregiving and domestic responsibilities undertaken by women that remain unrecognised and undervalued. Denying such benefits perpetuates inequality and undermines their overall contribution. 
11. Highlighting the importance and need for paternity leave: The Court also addressed the stereotype that only mothers are caregivers. True equality can only be achieved when the responsibilities are shared. The Court urged the Government to recognise paternity leave because if fathers are encouraged to take leave, it would reduce the bias in the professional space against women. 

CONCLUSION: 

The Court concluded that the provision is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 to the extent that it provides benefits only to adoptive mothers of children below three months. Hence, this part is to be deleted from the statute and 12 weeks of leave must be granted from the date of actual hand-over of the child. Immediate compliance has to be ensured.